[Destiny]

They do - look at the Fusion mortar on Fenris and Leviathan cruisers.

Oh, so the Fusion Mortar is a special exception with the Fenris/Leviathan for multipart dumbfire missiles? I see.

As far as having it work, the Infyrno is the exception, actually. The turret AI uses spawning missiles differently unless you add the "smart spawn" flag.

Hmm I see. I tested it out, anything that got near the missile launchers were promptly blown up by a tempest of...Tempests. It was a pretty lightshow for bombers that tried to dodge via afterburners.

[Buckshee Rounds]

I find heat-seeking missiles to be outrageously useless.

Everywhere except multiplayer, a lot's to be said for a rain of rockeyes hurtling towards your opponent. Only works once as a shock tactic though, great fun all the same. I'm sure QD could talk at length about much smarter tactics with the same weapon.

Ugh, one of the ponies has it's backend to a unicorn and it's horn, looks really really wrong.

[Qent]

Swarm Trebuchets are awesome. Not enough to protect a Hecate from bombers, though.

[Destiny]

Do missile launchers actually try to intercept bombs and torpedoes? Occasionally I find the missile launchers I arm with TAGs and EMP Adv.s fire at incoming Apocalypses, but they never hit and fly...somewhere else. Would be pretty cool to see a Raynor bringing up a screen of Tempests trying to down incoming torps, anti-missile missile systems.

But wow, putting Stiletto IIs on all the missile launchers of a Raynor is...damn.

[General Battuta]

Solaris v. Erebus, 1v1, full air wings, no escorts, onboard active armor and ECM assets, no strategic context, no retreat, meeting engagement from 5 km. Who's got the most interesting scenario for how this plays out?

[Lepanto]

The Erebus would probably have the edge if it could get off multiple volleys from its forward beams at a distance, but the Solaris should still have the close-range edge with its turret-popping Gattlers and Apoc missile massacres.

The Solaris would be able to come out on top, I think, if it exploited the UEF's superior strikecraft and strikecraft-mounted weaponry. If the Erebus doesn't have the newfangled beam shutters, a wing of Uris from the Solaris should be able to easily knock out both of the Erebus's forward beam cannons with Archers and Paveways, from outside of the Tev fighter screen's instant-kill range, taking out a lot of the Tev destroyer's firepower in a few seconds of shooting. They'd get Trebbed or killed by interceptors, of course, but taking out the Erebus's strongest weapons should give the Solaris the edge it needs to win in a close-up brawl. If the Erebus does have beam shutters, it would make the UEF's task a lot harder, and maybe require heavier weapons, but UEF bombers or gunships should still be able to do it, especially because the Erebus would have to open its shutters to fire the beams. (I don't know exactly how beam shutters will work, so this is an educated guess.)

The Tevs, by contrast, would have a much harder time defanging the Solaris. The Solaris's firepower is more evenly-distributed among a lot of turrets and missile launchers, rather than being more centered around a few vulnerable beam cannons, so Ares pop-up Treb snipers would need a lot more long-range shots to cripple the Solaris's anti-capital battery than the UEF Uris and Durgas would need to take out the Erebus's beams.

The UEF has other important strikecraft advantages, too. Uris with Slammers would be able to slaughter Tev fighter and bomber formations, unless the Tevs used wider formations. Tev bombers, as we know, are unimpressive, especially when attacked by UEF interceptors. Their Maxims would give them a little extra hull damage, and might take out some turrets, but they wouldn't live long enough to get a lot of Maxim rounds off, if the UEF interceptor pilots are competent. Though I don't have a lot of experience with them, I think that a well-positioned attack group of UEF bombers would probably do more hull and subsystem damage to an Erebus than a similarly-sized Tev bomber raid would do to a Solaris. The Tevs do, admittedly, have Trebs; a mass pop-up Treb strike, timed to coincide with with a heavy fighter/bomber push, could really do some damage to UEF strikecraft. Still, the UEF's strikecraft edge should hold true, and that, if anything, should hand the UEF the victory.

From what I know, I'd think that the UEF's superior electronics should give them an ECM edge, though I don't know enough about BP electronic warfare to tell you exactly how that would affect the battle.

So, all in all, unless I'm really missing something, the Solaris looks like it has the better chance of winning. 

[rubixcube]

There are a few things about the Erebus that we don't know yet, such as how the ship's combat capabilities have changed with the new hi poly model, as well as how tough the ship actually is compared to the Solaris.

[Mars]

I think a lot of it would have to do with the an Erebus alpha strike - if it could get it in, the Solaris would be in deep trouble. In the ensuing slug match, I suspect the Solaris would have some advantage.

Another aspect is fighter load - if the Erebus had TEI fighters only, it would have a much better chance. If it was packing Myrmidons. . . perhaps not so much. Either way, the Solaris holds more fighters, and a more bomber geared arsenal.

Also, if the Solaris crew remembered to bring Paveways, it's all over for the Erebus XD

[EuclidianGeometry]

I think we can safely assume Paveways and such UEF special missiles will be standard issue aboard Solaris...

In which case i think it would be difficult, but not impossible for Erebus to win.
It would be in the Erebus' best interest to try to deplete the Solaris' strikecraft assets first and maximizing its non-beam arsenal.

[Rheyah]

First main beam shot slams and disables the fighter bay.  Beam targetting switches to the engines, cripples the Solaris ability to withdraw.

Following this, Erebus withdraws to six kilometres and just bombards with pulse cannons set to point defense mode.

It's unfortunate that we've been playing on the UEF side, making the GTVA by necessity hold back a lot of their dirty tricks.  A great deal of the UEF's tactical advantage is in their fighters and their ability to overwhelm fighter screens.  In the absence of any supporting craft, the Solaris is one fire-beam on its fighter beams away from being completely gutted.  The Solaris doesn't have the sheer alpha strike firepower of even the old Raynor, nevermind the Erebus.

If we're talking about Steele, he'd massively leverage his alpha strike firepower to cripple the Solaris' support capacity and then go defensive, peeling away layers of armour until he can land a critical finishing strike.

The Solaris, for all its long engagement brilliance (and it is very good at that) takes around 30-45s to get its offense going.  With the Erebus able to deploy its fighter screen entirely defensively and the Solaris unable to do so at all, I'd give this to the Erebus pretty quickly.

If both are deployed in advance (unrealistic, lets face it) then I'd give it to the Solaris solely because the torpedo barrages are going to overwhelm the deployed point defense of the Erebus without the support of its fighter wings.

IF we are talking about Calder vs Steele, then Calder is known for depleting his air wing and overcoming a lack of flank support with overwhelming aggression in support of other operations.  Steele is known for precision strikes.  A battle between these two would come about as a result of Calder overplaying his hand and Steele would proceed to cripple any reserve strike capability he has, followed by his mobility.  He would then withdraw and strike elsewhere.

Neither would risk their destroyer in a direct engagement with another destroyer as anything other than a tactic or for a significant strategic victory.  Steele wouldn't take the risk of Calder pulling his forces back to engage the Atreus.  He'd turn up, unleash a horribly damaging alpha strike on Calder's main support structures, remain to inflict enough damage to force Calder to withdraw the destroyer for repairs and then push off elsewhere.

Under real combat conditions, a stalemate.  Under both jump in combat conditions with proper combat tactics, the Erebus takes it pretty quickly.  Under FRED combat conditions, the Solaris has the damage per second advantage so wins.

[Phantom Hoover]

I'm sceptical of the "Erebus slags the fighterbay" line of reasoning, for the same reason as all the clever tricks Salty used to come up with: it's just too effective for it to work, go unremarked upon, and not affect the verisimilitude of the setting. Also it's reaaaally dependent on positioning.

[The E]

It should also be noted that the Solaris has multiple fighter bays. Destroying all of them with a single shot is doubtful, and assumes that the Solaris CO is basically pointing his ship directly at the Erebus; something the Solaris (as more of a broadside fighter) is not built to do.

[General Battuta]

Also, if the Solaris crew remembered to bring Paveways, it's all over for the Erebus XD

Warship-launched countermeasures hugely degrade the effectiveness of Paveways.

It's unfortunate that we've been playing on the UEF side, making the GTVA by necessity hold back a lot of their dirty tricks.

Not sure where you're getting this from. If anything the opposite is true - BP2 so far is skewed by the nature of the strategic situation towards mitigating the UEF's tricks and enhancing the GTVA's.

[Rheyah]

Also, if the Solaris crew remembered to bring Paveways, it's all over for the Erebus XD

Warship-launched countermeasures hugely degrade the effectiveness of Paveways.

It's unfortunate that we've been playing on the UEF side, making the GTVA by necessity hold back a lot of their dirty tricks.

Not sure where you're getting this from. If anything the opposite is true - BP2 so far is skewed by the nature of the strategic situation towards mitigating the UEF's tricks and enhancing the GTVA's.

Well it's kind of obvious given that you're playing the UEF as a protagonist and thus, you can't give the GTVA complete tactical confidence in every situation otherwise you would never win.  The omnipresent beam jamming, for example.  It's a great storytelling element but in a direct fight, if you throw in the GTVA's dirty tricks department (Titan/Chimera alpha strikes, saturation SSM, destroyer advantage, point defense cruiser formations and Maxim bombardment) it all becomes seriously one sided.  Those few tricks employed by the GTVA (Trebuchet strikes, mainly) are quite easily nullified by the enormous advantage of blocking beam cannon fire.

However, some of this critique (and to be fair it is very limited compared to other campaigns) is mollified by the methods employed by the GTVA in Act 3 and the fact that they are starting to shut down Paveway strikes in Act 4. 

As you say, the balance of the war is in propaganda as well as industrial and military might which is good storytelling.  It's not just a spacebattles "Who Would Win, Goku or Superman" style thing.  There are just a number of times where the GTVA could have done better and didn't, for the sake of good storytelling.

[Rheyah]

It should also be noted that the Solaris has multiple fighter bays. Destroying all of them with a single shot is doubtful, and assumes that the Solaris CO is basically pointing his ship directly at the Erebus; something the Solaris (as more of a broadside fighter) is not built to do.

That's the point of an alpha strike though.  If we're putting a Raynor or an Erebus up against a Solaris and you get to decide exactly how the Solaris engages without any input from the GTVA captain then you get an easy win for the Solaris because its numbers are bigger after about 30s.

If a Tev captain is actually playing this right, then he does take on the Solaris head on, he fires his first beam shot straight into its fighter bays, peels off, fires the second into its engines and jumps out before he has to deal with the torpedoes unless he already has space superiority, at which point all he needs to do is keep his distance and keep firing.

If the two are battling against each other, it's a war of positioning which the Solaris will eventually win due to its good fire on all octants approach, but I don't think either destroyer is actually going down in this engagement either way.  The Tev is going to keep his fighter screen close to knock out torpedoes due to his far superior stand off capability.

It'd be a good fight if done properly.

By the way, I'm not wading into this as a kind of "THE TEVS MUST WIN" kind of thing, like some weird Vs thread on a sci-fi forum.  There are significant weaknesses in the designs of UEF ships which a clever Tev could take advantage of and could make an engagement like this much more dramatic.  After all I assume Battuta isn't just asking a question for the idleness of making everyone argue about whose numbers are bigger

[General Battuta]

You've fallen into that awful, awful trap of trying to divorce storytelling devices from the way the setting actually works. They are one and the same. Ugh, this is going to take one of those Line By Line Takedown posts I hate so much.

Well it's kind of obvious given that you're playing the UEF as a protagonist and thus, you can't give the GTVA complete tactical confidence in every situation otherwise you would never win.

I'll flat out call this wrong. The UEF and GTVA's strategic confidence play by the same rules, and the UEF has more tricks held back in the name of allowing the player to stay near the center of the gameplay space.

The omnipresent beam jamming, for example.

The 'omnipresent beam jamming' is a special-use tactic with a pretty dire strategic half-life and even in ideal conditions it works onscreen...twice? And not even in the same way on the same weapons.

It's a great storytelling element but in a direct fight, if you throw in the GTVA's dirty tricks department (Titan/Chimera alpha strikes, saturation SSM, destroyer advantage, point defense cruiser formations and Maxim bombardment) it all becomes seriously one sided.  Those few tricks employed by the GTVA (Trebuchet strikes, mainly) are quite easily nullified by the enormous advantage of blocking beam cannon fire.

Those 'few tricks' employed by the GTVA? You see every one of the tricks you just listed employed in Act 1+2 alone, whether on the strategic or tactical level. When the UEF tries to convert its beam jamming technology into a second strategic victory it gets hammered into the floor because the GTVA figured it out and beat it.

However, some of this critique (and to be fair it is very limited compared to other campaigns) is mollified by the methods employed by the GTVA in Act 3 and the fact that they are starting to shut down Paveway strikes in Act 4. 

The critique is myopic and ignorant and doesn't hold up even in Act 1-2. The UEF is the only party guilty of holding back: solutions that could be solved by the UEF's existing arsenal are derogated in favor of giving the player something to do (with narrative and logical support, of course, we're not idiots, but -). The strategic realities of the war had to be carefully constructed so that the UEF's overwhelming bomber and gunship corps did not become a juggernaut which would roll over every mission concept and resolve most tensions with 'I kills it with a Durga'.

There are just a number of times where the GTVA could have done better and didn't, for the sake of good storytelling.

Find me one. If you can manage it, try to avoid finding just as many UEF situations.

Responding to this post was like an awful flashback to the worst days of this forum. It made me actively angry. I thought we'd moved past 'well these things only happen due to story convenience, ~realistically~ my power-gamed tactic would allow GTVA/UEF victory in 2.6 days'.

[Luis Dias]

The way I see it there's a very assymetrical tactical schematic to the playing field. To the Erebus viewpoint, there is a kind of a goldilocks zone that spans between an enough far away zone, a zone where the Erebus's fighter escort can sucessfully shield it from direct missile spamming and gattlers are still not working efficiently against it, and a zone where its giant blue cannon cannot hit the Solaris. To the Solaris viewpoint, it's the exact reverse: there is a deadly zone where its weapons cannot penetrate the defenses of its adversary and is basically a "sitting duck" to Erebus' long range artillery.

There is both a tactical point to be made regarding possible electromagnetic countermeasures by the Solaris (deflecting Erebus' beams) and Erebus ability to conceal and heal its beam turrets. I will mostly regard those as nuances or annoyances to the general tactics, leaving them somewhat unchanged.

So the first thing the Erebus' CO wants to do is to get its fighter escort out as fast as they can in order to stop spam bombing by Solaris itself or its bomber wings. They will escort the destroyer very closely to it in order to benefit from its defensive turrets. The next thing is to get the Solaris in beam range. I don't recall if in 5 clicks it is already so. Nevertheless, whenever it is, the engines should focus on getting the Erebus always facing the Solaris and as far away as possible, so unless it can thrust itself backwards, it must stop. It should extend as far as possible the amount of time the Solaris is in beam range and out of Solaris' artillery range.

The Solaris must close this negative goldilock's zone as fast as possible, if it wants to engage and destroy the Erebus. Thus it must face the Erebus head on with a slight tilt (so it can shadow one lateral side from Erebus' beams as much as possible), giving the Erebus a very narrow sillouette to shoot to (and hopefully with the help of its EM shenanigans, not suffer too much from the beams). They will overheat their engines and try to get to close range fast. Their fighter and bomber wings are probably superior to the Erebus' ones, so they will try to shut down Erebus' primary weapon as fast as possible.

It's a matter of maths now. If the Solaris' wings can shut down the beam turrets (or at least force them to close down for repairs) without suffering too many losses, they will do so as fast as possible from the get go. If not, it should be more optimal to only do so when the Erebus is in range of the Solaris itself, so they can also be assisted by it against the Erebus' wings and turrets.

Nevertheless when the Solaris is close enough to the Erebus, the Erebus should start its own engines and try to minimize the amount of time it is very near to the Solaris. The Solaris will however be able to not let the Erebus escape.  This tactical evaluation makes it clear that the lack of backward thrusters by the Erebus is a severe tactical disadvantage. They could, however, take hold of its own super subspace engines and when the ships are close it just jumps away 5, 8 clicks away again. This could prove a problem for the Solaris, that can jump once after the Erebus does to a very close range, but then in a minute or so the Erebus will be able to jump away again and it will be hell for the Solaris.

That latter tactic however is one that sacrifices its wings, who will become easy targets once they lack the Erebus' flaks, etc.

[Rheyah]

You've fallen into that awful, awful trap of trying to divorce storytelling devices from the way the setting actually works. They are one and the same. Ugh, this is going to take one of those Line By Line Takedown posts I hate so much.

Well it's kind of obvious given that you're playing the UEF as a protagonist and thus, you can't give the GTVA complete tactical confidence in every situation otherwise you would never win.

I'll flat out call this wrong. The UEF and GTVA's strategic confidence play by the same rules, and the UEF has more tricks held back in the name of allowing the player to stay near the center of the gameplay space.

The omnipresent beam jamming, for example.

The 'omnipresent beam jamming' is a special-use tactic with a pretty dire strategic half-life and even in ideal conditions it works onscreen...twice? And not even in the same way on the same weapons.

It's a great storytelling element but in a direct fight, if you throw in the GTVA's dirty tricks department (Titan/Chimera alpha strikes, saturation SSM, destroyer advantage, point defense cruiser formations and Maxim bombardment) it all becomes seriously one sided.  Those few tricks employed by the GTVA (Trebuchet strikes, mainly) are quite easily nullified by the enormous advantage of blocking beam cannon fire.

Those 'few tricks' employed by the GTVA? You see every one of the tricks you just listed employed in Act 1+2 alone, whether on the strategic or tactical level. When the UEF tries to convert its beam jamming technology into a second strategic victory it gets hammered into the floor because the GTVA figured it out and beat it.

However, some of this critique (and to be fair it is very limited compared to other campaigns) is mollified by the methods employed by the GTVA in Act 3 and the fact that they are starting to shut down Paveway strikes in Act 4. 

The critique is myopic and ignorant and doesn't hold up even in Act 1-2. The UEF is the only party guilty of holding back: solutions that could be solved by the UEF's existing arsenal are derogated in favor of giving the player something to do (with narrative and logical support, of course, we're not idiots, but -). The strategic realities of the war had to be carefully constructed so that the UEF's overwhelming bomber and gunship corps did not become a juggernaut which would roll over every mission concept and resolve most tensions with 'I kills it with a Durga'.

There are just a number of times where the GTVA could have done better and didn't, for the sake of good storytelling.

Find me one. If you can manage it, try to avoid finding just as many UEF situations.

Responding to this post was like an awful flashback to the worst days of this forum. It made me actively angry. I thought we'd moved past 'well these things only happen due to story convenience, ~realistically~ my power-gamed tactic would allow GTVA/UEF victory in 2.6 days'.

Do I really have to reply to this?  Why are you being so angry that someone has a different view of your story than you do?  There are just situations that I identified where the Tevs could have done better.  That's not an issue, man.  It's not even an issue with your story.  Things happen in stories.  That's the point of them.  Ned Stark could have brought down the Lannisters had he agreed to side with Renly, but he didn't.

I'm gonna assume I said something you took the wrong way and apologize for it, but I don't really get why you're angry with me.  I've played with BP ships in FRED to see how they work, to figure out their weapon design, see where they were weak and how to develop good gameplay.  I think there were times when the Tevs could have done better.  That's all.  I'm not saying they could instantly win the war or anything or calling your style of writing bad or anything.  I'm just commenting on a ship battle and giving my opinion.  In my mind I'm only here for the story, the FREDing and the gameplay.  That's it.  It's just an opinion I formed based off the playing with the Solaris and the Raynor I did in my own time.

[General Battuta]

You've got to understand we've spent 4 years trying to get people to stop trying to game and beat the story, and to accept that if something happens (or doesn't) happen onscreen it's because there are coherent rules which govern when and how force can be deployed.

It started with 'why doesn't the GTVA just blitz Earth on day 1', probably hit its absolute nadir with 'the Wargods should've rammed the Carthage', and proceeded through a lot of SaltyWaffles threads (ILU Salty, you're great) and mostly died off thanks to a contingent of quality posters who'd read the background fluff. I'm less angry at you than at the prospect of returning to 'I would've shock-jumped them RIGHT THEN and fired a Trebuchet strike and an SSM meson bomb'.

The rules of subspace speed chess govern everything in Sol. When there's an apparent tactical lapse, it's often due to the broader strategic realities. This is why our briefings often get so long: we want to provide contextual information so interested players can understand why, say, the Tevs don't have SSMs available right now, or can't jump in another squadron of Maxim bombers to pop a frigate, or fire a beam cannon directly into that Narayana's mass drivers from 5k. Conversely, the fluff pieces in The Reunion and The Rift help provide rules that prevent the UEF from blitzing the Tevs with their bomber corps and pushing them back out of the node.

What's rage-inducingly important to us is our devotion to harmonizing the setting's internal logic with the needs of our story and gameplay so that they all work together. I'd go so far as to call this one of the core missions of BP: to make FreeSpace war make sense with a minimum of unsupported extracanonical contrivance. Trying to peel those three layers apart and identify discrepancies triggers my posting PTSD.

[General Battuta]

The way I see it there's a very assymetrical tactical schematic to the playing field. To the Erebus viewpoint, there is a kind of a goldilocks zone that spans between an enough far away zone, a zone where the Erebus's fighter escort can sucessfully shield it from direct missile spamming and gattlers are still not working efficiently against it, and a zone where its giant blue cannon cannot hit the Solaris. To the Solaris viewpoint, it's the exact reverse: there is a deadly zone where its weapons cannot penetrate the defenses of its adversary and is basically a "sitting duck" to Erebus' long range artillery.

There is both a tactical point to be made regarding possible electromagnetic countermeasures by the Solaris (deflecting Erebus' beams) and Erebus ability to conceal and heal its beam turrets. I will mostly regard those as nuances or annoyances to the general tactics, leaving them somewhat unchanged.

So the first thing the Erebus' CO wants to do is to get its fighter escort out as fast as they can in order to stop spam bombing by Solaris itself or its bomber wings. They will escort the destroyer very closely to it in order to benefit from its defensive turrets. The next thing is to get the Solaris in beam range. I don't recall if in 5 clicks it is already so. Nevertheless, whenever it is, the engines should focus on getting the Erebus always facing the Solaris and as far away as possible, so unless it can thrust itself backwards, it must stop. It should extend as far as possible the amount of time the Solaris is in beam range and out of Solaris' artillery range.

The Solaris must close this negative goldilock's zone as fast as possible, if it wants to engage and destroy the Erebus. Thus it must face the Erebus head on with a slight tilt (so it can shadow one lateral side from Erebus' beams as much as possible), giving the Erebus a very narrow sillouette to shoot to (and hopefully with the help of its EM shenanigans, not suffer too much from the beams). They will overheat their engines and try to get to close range fast. Their fighter and bomber wings are probably superior to the Erebus' ones, so they will try to shut down Erebus' primary weapon as fast as possible.

It's a matter of maths now. If the Solaris' wings can shut down the beam turrets (or at least force them to close down for repairs) without suffering too many losses, they will do so as fast as possible from the get go. If not, it should be more optimal to only do so when the Erebus is in range of the Solaris itself, so they can also be assisted by it against the Erebus' wings and turrets.

Nevertheless when the Solaris is close enough to the Erebus, the Erebus should start its own engines and try to minimize the amount of time it is very near to the Solaris. The Solaris will however be able to not let the Erebus escape.  This tactical evaluation makes it clear that the lack of backward thrusters by the Erebus is a severe tactical disadvantage. They could, however, take hold of its own super subspace engines and when the ships are close it just jumps away 5, 8 clicks away again. This could prove a problem for the Solaris, that can jump once after the Erebus does to a very close range, but then in a minute or so the Erebus will be able to jump away again and it will be hell for the Solaris.

That latter tactic however is one that sacrifices its wings, who will become easy targets once they lack the Erebus' flaks, etc.

This magnum opus deserves a reply since it's so comprehensive: how does your estimation of the Erebus' zoning (this is like a really elaborate space fighting) change if she has local SSMs? 

Also, I'm gonna give an optional variant: each side can tag team in 1 ship below destroyer size. Has to be a realistically available member of their order of battle. It comes with its air wing if it has one. What do they pick?