Author Topic: Combining GTVA and UEF technology  (Read 27475 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Droid803

  • Trusted poster of legit stuff
  • 213
  • /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\ Do you want to be a Magical Girl?
    • Skype
    • Steam
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
There's also that hidden text on nuRayana textures which speaks 'bout it IIRC.

I'll quote it:

Quote from: Narayana Texture
There is no question that Shivan tactical behaviour is often poorly optimized. The local structure absorbs losses that could otherwise be deflected, applies force to surfaces instead of gaps, and deploys weapons and craft which the perform well below the parameters that their engineering is capable of. Witness the primary weapons on Shivan fighters, which could outstrip the Kayser special issue weapon in every aspect yet consistently do not; or the enhanced performance of the Mara fighters that SOC captured during the second incursion. We raise these points in light of successes of our colleague and respected friend, Admiral Chiwetel Steele in combat with the Federation in Sol. It is our contention that his tactics, often compared to that of the Shivans, are in fact their antithesis and that widespread adpotion of his doctrines could doom any warfighting effort against a notional third incursion.

Shivan behaviour is not locally optimized. We advance the notion that it is instead globally optimized: globally optimized for the task of not winning battles but of destroying entire species, empires far vaster than we, the Alliance, could achieve in the next thousand years. Admiral Steele's success relies on honing a specific set of tactics aimed directly at an enemy's weakness, exploiting superior information and denying the enemy knowledge of his own movements and plans. The Shivans, conversely, are adapted to fight and win a very different scenario: engaging a foe capable of simulating all possible outcomes, with perfect information on Shivan capabilities, and with the Shivans possessing no such advantage. Like a cancer or an immunity plague, the Shivans seek to diversify their strategies, to present as many different vectors of attacks as possible and allow the enemy, through their responses, to select those which they fear the most and those which will do the most harm.

To use a metaphor from an old story - Steele is Batman, with a single linear plan; but the Shivans are the Joker, or an entire Hive of Jokers, enacting madness in every direction - wasteful locally, but globally impossible to counter, for any adaptation to one strategy simply renders the defender vulnerable to the next...

They are godslayers, built as an infinitely broad and deep reactive organism, converting all losses into information and then to ultimate victory. They begin, intentionally, from nothing, free of all exploitable preconceptions; to attack them is to teach them.

How "BP canon" is this? No clue.


Though from the looks of this, the Shivans rely on having vastly superior production to be able to "afford" inefficient strategies to probe the weaknesses of an adversary. I'm intrigued at the concept what would happen if they ran into another race with a similarly large logistics base but had a single highly-optimized strategy how they would fare...

By the time they find it's 'weakness' through trial and error, would they have spent too much for it to matter?

Neither the UEF nor the GTVA have such a production base capable of matching the Shivans.
The Vishnans however...
« Last Edit: September 02, 2012, 08:49:46 pm by Droid803 »
(´・ω・`)
=============================================================

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
Remember that Shivans and Vishnans are no stranger to each other. From what we know about them, I'd say they're unlikely to go on an all-out war with each other. That said, knowing them, everything could change after they appear again, and after humans mess with their affairs a second time.

 

Offline headdie

  • i don't use punctuation lol
  • 212
  • Lawful Neutral with a Chaotic outook
    • Minecraft
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • Headdie on Deviant Art
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
Remember that Shivans and Vishnans are no stranger to each other. From what we know about them, I'd say they're unlikely to go on an all-out war with each other. That said, knowing them, everything could change after they appear again, and after humans mess with their affairs a second time.

After AoA are we meddling in their affairs or are they in ours?
Minister of Interstellar Affairs Sol Union - Retired
quote General Battuta - "FRED is canon!"
Contact me at [email protected]
My Release Thread, Old Release Thread, Celestial Objects Thread, My rubbish attempts at art

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
Quote
How "BP canon" is this? No clue.

It is canon in so far as that it is a text that exists in-universe.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline MatthTheGeek

  • Captain Obvious
  • 212
  • Frenchie McFrenchface
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
It's probably about as canon as Conversations from War in heaven.
People are stupid, therefore anything popular is at best suspicious.

Mod management tools     -     Wiki stuff!     -     Help us help you

666maslo666: Releasing a finished product is not a good thing! It is a modern fad.

SpardaSon21: it seems like you exist in a permanent state of half-joking misanthropy

Axem: when you put it like that, i sound like an insane person

bigchunk1: it's not retarded it's american!
bigchunk1: ...

batwota: steele's maneuvering for the coup de gras
MatthTheGeek: you mispelled grâce
Awaesaar: grace
batwota: oh right :P
Darius: ah!
Darius: yes, i like that
MatthTheGeek: the way you just spelled it it means fat
Awaesaar: +accent I forgot how to keyboard
MatthTheGeek: or grease
Darius: the killing fat!
Axem: jabba does the coup de gras
MatthTheGeek: XD
Axem: bring me solo and a cookie

 

Offline redsniper

  • 211
  • Aim for the Top!
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
Quote
How "BP canon" is this? No clue.

It is canon in so far as that it is a text that exists in-universe.

It's painted on every Naryana, don'tcha know? Why in FRED's name the feds decided to do that is anyone's guess. :p
"Think about nice things not unhappy things.
The future makes happy, if you make it yourself.
No war; think about happy things."   -WouterSmitssm

Hard Light Productions:
"...this conversation is pointlessly confrontational."

 

Offline Rodo

  • Custom tittle
  • 212
  • stargazer
    • Minecraft
    • Steam
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
So Steele is Batman, eh?

Nice, ****ing Batman.
el hombre vicio...

 

Offline An4ximandros

  • 210
  • Transabyssal metastatic event
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
So that explains all the a**pulls Steele has been able to do, he's the god**mn Batman, he can probably beat the Shivans too.

 

Offline Colonol Dekker

  • HLP is my mistress
  • 213
  • Aken Tigh Dekker
    • My old squad sub-domain
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
Only if he remembers his Bat-Shivan repellant....

 

Offline Ravenholme

  • 29
  • (d.h.f)
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
And it was my friend Useful Dave who created that infamous "Steele = Batman" image back shortly after the release of WiH
Full Auto - I've got a bullet here with your name on it, and I'm going to keep firing until I find out which one it is.

<The_E>   Several sex-based solutions come to mind
<The_E>   Errr
<The_E>   *sexp

 

Offline ^Graff

  • 26
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
While UEF tech does run into logistics problems, I don't see why the GTVA couldn't keep a few designs in reserve as force multipliers.  An all-Buntu fleet would run out of steam after a few days in an enemy system, true, but if you had a Tev fleet that carried an Uriel squadron or two with enough gear for a dozen sorties each, you could keep the Buntu ships in reserve until the Shivans sortied their heavy ships and use them then.
Quote
Originally posted by Anduril:
Dang, Graff, you good.  :)

 
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
Slammers, armor coagulant and active armor (though the GTVA seems to already have the latter), the Scalpel, PAVEWAY, Shrike, Archer (and the Uriel-gunship, at least its role and general capability; a wing of Uriels might be able to actually disable a Sath's forward beams given enough time and some cover), REDEEMER (and, if made more practical, the Vajra), beam jamming if actually effective against Shivans, Burst Flak, Point Defense Turret's (works great against warheads, decently against fighters/bombers, and does a little damage to other ships with accuracy), and the Narayana.

Narayana...now there's an interesting one. Its mass drivers and gauss cannons are actually powerful enough and practical enough to be a decent Sathanas counter. With a sprint drive, more gauss cannons/mass drivers in place of the torpedoes, and give it some AWACS support, and you've got a pretty effective (if niche) platform.

And the Dart. And the Dirk. The former for obvious reasons, but the latter for its effectiveness against unescorted bombers and moderate utility against larger targets and fighters as well. Though I can't remember if the Tornado does similar damage and has similar cargo size...because then the Tornado would just be the obvious winner there.

The Grimler is just...I'm not sure, but it just seems too similar to the Trebuchet but not powerful enough to make up for its lesser range (and larger cargo size?).

The Durga bomber, if made cheaper (likely through reducing maneuverability, some secondary capacity, and other non-essentials; maybe just make it a Redeemer and Warhammer platform), may be a viable heavy bomber unit. Redeemers aren't limited by the stupid aspect-lock, refire times, snail-like speed and interceptability of bombs, so they're actually much more practical. And they're better against subsystems, too.

As far as primary cannons go, aside from the Scalpel (and not counting the Redeemer or Archer), it's hard to justify taking anything over the Balor (or an updated version of the Balor), with the only possible exception being the Rapier. It has enough punch, ROF, range, and not too much energy consumption to be practical for space superiority and SOC operations.

The Custos is somewhat interesting in one aspect--if it can affordably house decent AWACS capability as a standard, alongside its other standard armament, then it could be a cheap, effective, and versatile asset to be used alongside groups of fighters/bombers. Not just fire support against craft and ships alike, but limited AWACS capability, major boon to convoy escort (warhead interception, Warhammers against cruisers, AWACS, etc.). The Cretheus is still far superior against craft and ships with lighter armor, though, on top of being significantly smaller (and probably cheaper, too?) and having better turret coverage.

The Sanctus cruiser/corvette is an interesting notion in the sense that, if cheap enough to produce/use, could effectively double as military freight, transport, convoy escort, antipiracy duty, and major supporting roles in wartime operations.

The Karuna Mk2 is also rather interesting. If it can be constructed (and operated) under the cost of a Diomedes, it would seem like a worthy replacement. The normal Karuna, though, is just plain impractical and innefficient in most roles outside of Sol. Unless antipiracy duty would really benefit from a few Karunas, it's hard to imagine it being useful outside of a fire support and minor carrier capability.

As for the Solaris-class....well, the key is how much it would cost to construct even a watered-down version. But as far as potential goes--large carrier, sure, but imagine if you converted it into a massive SSM platform. Just...think of the possibilities. Slap a sprint drive on there, pair it with an AWACS, and you've got insane levels of SSM artillery available in whatever system it's in, along with the fleet-carrier's worth of strike craft it brings along with it.

Oh, duh. Of course.

The Sidhe.

Man, that gun. That's how you make the Draco practical (if even more niched); this gun is pretty damn impressive when used correctly. And it doesn't even use ammo, making it practical (I think) by GTVA standards. The UX Accelerator is also a great weapon, but being an ammo-based one that requires a decent amount of skill and getting used to, it's probably less likely to get adopted.

Ah, right. The Lapith. A very interesting craft. Practical, beautiful, and fairly versatile for a bomber. If it has/could be modified for adequate endurance and affordability, this might be the ideal mainstay Terran bomber--even if you'd run escorted formations of two or three instead of four, it'd be much more effective regardless.

The armor coagulant is a brilliant piece of tech--if it could be affordably/practically applied to GTVA ships, it would be godsend. You could send a ship to a fight that you're confident it would win, and then have it repair itself by a major degree in as little as a minute or two of lull in the action. Of course, it wouldn't be a true substitute for dedicated repair time in dock, but it would save tremendous amounts of lives and assets, while boosting overall combat effectiveness and morale.


Still waiting to see the Arquebus in its intended action; depending on where its mounted and its final stats, it may or may not be that useful.

The Hydra...well, an interesting weapon at least. Not sure if it's that practical against Shivan forces. I'll wait until we see it in action to judge.

The Vindicator...I'm very curious as to what this is, exactly. Seems to be a ship or craft of some kind, but it may also just be an outdated name for an existing ship, or a craft/ship that got cut.

Hellfires....not sure if it's worth adopting over the Tempest.

The Oculus might be a better electronic warfare platform than the Charybdis--it's probably much more expensive, but having a small number of them may be handy for dedicated beam jamming. If the design and capabilities were entirely dedicated to beam jamming, its potential against the Shivans may be worth looking into.

The UEI Kumari, as well as the UEI Bretonnia, seem rather practical and useful.

The Vajra fleet bombers might be useful if the design could be adapted to a dedicated anti-beam-cannon platform (pretty much for use against Sathanas Juggs), and made cheaper, likely forgoing most of its secondary capacity, and a bit of maneuverability. Its Vajra cannon, if it could be adapated to a more Archer-like role and performance, might make it practical.

The Izra'il assault fighter is an interesting and powerful craft, but its practicality beyond Sol depends on info we just don't have yet (cost, flexibility to be modified for more practical GTVA roles, if it could mount Maxims ( >:) .) without much trouble, or Archer-like cannons, etc.).

UEF probably has some useful terraforming tech, come to think of it.

As for why beams are better--even with the heat issues, it's undeniable that the shear damage output, accuracy, general range, and field of fire makes beam cannons a vastly more preferable option than all but the best mass driver setups (when it comes to killing ships). Even a Karuna Mk2's damage output, with its sixteen mass driver cannons, is roughly equivalent to an MBlue with a refire time of 10 seconds, maybe with an SBlue thrown in. Definitely respectable, but compared to even a Chimera, it's relatively weak (and nowhere near as practical for shock-jump tactics).

And as far as torpedoes go, it just seems like they're a lot less effective and practical as a primary armament than beam cannons, especially because of how easily they can be intercepted by diligent fighters or good point defenses. It works well for the UEF because they've got a giant stockpile of antimatter torps all ready to go, so spamming them isn't nearly as expensive as it might otherwise be. Even then, though, just ask the Akula and Ranvir how much their torpedoes helped in the face of beam cannons, especially from a distance greater than 4 km. It does good damage over time, but against the Shivans that's only useful as a secondary/followup armament, not a main one.

Hopefully the UEF has some good construction/applied sciences that can make the production of ships and craft cheaper and/or faster for the GTVA; it's far better to have three Chimeras than a Bellerophon if you can do it for equal cost and time. And the Shivans seem to have lots and lots of ships. Almost ludicrous numbers, if AoA's Shivan/Vishnan warfare was only indicating a minority of Shivan forces (though why they'd make anything other than Liliths, Sathanas's, and maybe Demons is a tad puzzling. Then again, Liliths are absurdly and jarringly OP, given their corvette-level hull, decent point defenses, a freaking LRED, all in a Cain-sized and proportioned cruiser---seriously, wut? Why even bother with building Rhakshasa's if you can build a Lilith, even at double the cost? And why is the Ravana the epitome of a glass cannon in order to mount two LReds when you can feasibly mount them on cruisers with the durability of a corvette?).


Okay, wrapping up here. The Ainsarii--not enough info. If it's affordable enough, it might work as a niche unit for the SOC, where you need both stealth/recon capability alongside good combat capability. If its stealth and recon capability is leagues better than the Pegasus, then it's a whole 'nother ball game entirely.

Lao Tze--yyyyyeah. Don't really see the appeal for this fighter. It's huge, its gun placement is poor (except for its Cavalier pair in the nose), its secondary banks are oddly positioned and very picky about what you can put in each one, its speed is merely equivalent with the Draco and Kent, and its maneuverability is--while great--not enough to make up for its huge profile, awkward gun placement, and obvious expense for a role that could be just as effectively performed by a pair of Kents or a wing of Nyx's. And in the face of a wing of Atalantas with Balors and Tornadoes, I'd rather be in a Kent (so I could run away...and lob missiles at them while reverse afterburning).

Angel Flares...still no info on how effective, affordable, or practical they are. So wait and see.

Ah, and one other thing. An Archer variant (or just different ammo) that is effective against bombers. Though it would lack the range of a Trebuchet, being able to carry 70 rounds at a time, with a refire rate of one second, certainly intrigues me. Against unescorted wings of large, slow bombers, getting within 3 km and lobbing shot after shot until each of the four are down (or in total disarray) has a certain kind of appeal.

And whatever needs to be done to increase the max range of the Balor. Not its velocity, just its range--to make it a better anti-warhead tool against waves of lumbering bombers. And, well, a slight increase in damage in exchange for a small increase in energy consumption wouldn't be at all unwelcome.

//sorry, I'll end this stupidly long post now.
Delenda Est delenda est.

(Yay gratuitous Latin.)

 

Offline TwentyPercentCooler

  • Operates at 375 kelvin
  • 28
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
Drop a Uriel into Bearbaiting. It makes that mission loltastically easy. The Uriel, Archer, and Paveway, at least, are so ridiculously more awesome than anything the GTVA has for that role that it's not even funny.

 

Offline Colonol Dekker

  • HLP is my mistress
  • 213
  • Aken Tigh Dekker
    • My old squad sub-domain
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
" Drop a Uriel..." http://bit.ly/S8RyXs
 :P

 
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
UEF bomber technology is a dead end. 

In some ways, maybe. But put Redeemers in your loadout for a Durga bomber and see how fast you can tear apart capships. Ammo isn't even that big of a concern; you've got plenty, far more than you'd need in terms of huge torpedoes. They have much better range, much better efficiency, better damage, better utility, and are far safer for a bomber pilot to use.

The biggest problem with conventional bomber tech is that it requires enemy resistance to be light in order to succeed. If the point defense turrets aren't down, they will intercept some of the bombs (perhaps all of them), and can then take a swipe at the bombers. If there's still a fighter screen, then few warheads will get through even if you have a fighter escort of your own. And it's rather rare, at least in FS2, for bomber wings to have a real fighter escort.

With torpedo tech remaining the same in BP, heavy bombers become irrelevant in terms of how many torpedoes they can carry--if they can loiter next to its target and spend minutes lobbing pair after pair of torpedoes until the target is dead, then it's just plain more efficient to use four light bombers instead, in every way. And if you don't expect bombers to survive getting off more than one or two pairs of bombs off before disengaging, what's the point of heavy bombers at all?

Delenda Est delenda est.

(Yay gratuitous Latin.)

 

Offline ^Graff

  • 26
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology

With torpedo tech remaining the same in BP, heavy bombers become irrelevant in terms of how many torpedoes they can carry--if they can loiter next to its target and spend minutes lobbing pair after pair of torpedoes until the target is dead, then it's just plain more efficient to use four light bombers instead, in every way. And if you don't expect bombers to survive getting off more than one or two pairs of bombs off before disengaging, what's the point of heavy bombers at all?
Heavy bombers are only a dead-end if you don't adapt your doctrine and tech to match.  Take the swarm-launch capability of a warhammer, slap it on a larger torpedo, and give it a stand-off range.  It's a huge bomb, and heavy bombers can't carry very many of them at all, but they don't need to.  You end up with heavy bombers being able to jump in, fire a single massive salvo of heavy torpedoes from stand-off range, and jump out before enemy interceptors can respond.  Make them a follow-up to an Ares wing using Trebs against point defense (instead of against fighters) and you can easily take out large ships without losing your people.
Quote
Originally posted by Anduril:
Dang, Graff, you good.  :)

 

Offline Veers

  • 29
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
" Drop a Uriel..." http://bit.ly/S8RyXs
 :P

Ummm.....  :confused:

 :yes:

My 2 cents, I think that the benefit of knowledge is always something to look into. While in current forms of both GTVA and UEF Tech, direct compatability etc might not be viable without some minor or major changes. Future tech has the advantages of being based on both forms of technology here. Assuming there is a future of course.

Current Activities/Projects: Ideas and some storyline completed.

ArmA 2&3 Mission Designer and player.


WoD - I like Crystal. <3

 
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
Would it be useful to mount mass drivers alongside beams to cripple subsystems during a fight? It seems like it'd give GTVA ships an extreme advantage to be able to defang Shivan capships quickly and from a distance.
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 

Offline -Norbert-

  • 211
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
It wouldn't really fit into the GTVAs current doctrine.
Right now it's pretty much "early reconnaisance, shockjumping in and blowing the enemy up before they can retaliate". Or in other words "You don't need to destroy the turrets of a ship that was blown up in less than 30 seconds".

Apart from that, you can't just switch a plasmaweapon or beam out with a long-barreled ammunition fed gun without some major changes to the structure underlying the turret . Wether you provide a gun with plasma or electricity from the main reactor, or ammunition coming from the magazine is quite different.


It might be a nice idea to put massdrivers on the front of a ship to take out enemy turrets while closing and finishing the enemy with a broadside of sidemounted beams, but that would require completely new ships to be designed specifically for that tactic.
But that would only be usefull against ships with very resilient hulls (which the Shivans do not have, except for the Sathanas - but against that beast mass drivers won't be much help anyway).
Another downside would be that those new ships would be more reliant on ammunition, which cuts down on the time they can operate independently.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 11:04:47 am by -Norbert- »

 

Offline headdie

  • i don't use punctuation lol
  • 212
  • Lawful Neutral with a Chaotic outook
    • Minecraft
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • Headdie on Deviant Art
Re: Combining GTVA and UEF technology
not to mention the increased logistics demand, especially for high tempo operations which shivans love to disrupt.
Minister of Interstellar Affairs Sol Union - Retired
quote General Battuta - "FRED is canon!"
Contact me at [email protected]
My Release Thread, Old Release Thread, Celestial Objects Thread, My rubbish attempts at art