[Luis Dias]

No, you don't.  You know from AoA that the Shivans weren't using ECM.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually, you are somewhat wrong in there. Absence of evidence is an evidence of absence. Many times, not sufficient evidence, but still. Just ask any Bayesian. And that was all I could ever disagree with you for all the words you shared.

[Aesaar]

I love how this discussion of uber-ships actually features the phrase "a supercapital on one side can actually allow them to instantly win a single battle" and completely and totally ignores the part of AoA where this is proven completely and totally false.

The Orestes and battlegroup absolutely obliterate a Sathanas while taking no losses above fighter level.  Supercapitals are liabilities that must be shepherded unceasingly lest they find themselves in a position to be out-maneuvered and destroyed with impunity.  The GTVA learned this lesson with the Colossus.

It's not just the Colossus that proves him wrong, it's what happens to the Vishnan Keeper.  But according to Apollo, the GTVA could build a better ship.

[Scotty]

Eh, that's a little less clear cut.  For all we know, the Keeper was a destroyer analogue, not a juggernaut.  I don't believe it's ever explicitly mentioned what class analogue the Keeper was.

[headdie]

indeed a hunter pack of 3-5 sprint drive + blue beam equipped corvettes attacking from the rear combined with destroyer support in the way of fighter screens, fighter reconnaissance and SSM strikes is a much safer and arguably faster way to tangle with a Sath than going one on one, not only that but when not taking saths down you have a much more flexible force with which to deal with "conventional" warship threats.

No, you don't.  You know from AoA that the Shivans weren't using ECM.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually, you are somewhat wrong in there. Absence of evidence is an evidence of absence. Many times, not sufficient evidence, but still. Just ask any Bayesian. And that was all I could ever disagree with you for all the words you shared.

errrr no, it gives rise to possibility but it would be an assumption and there is a phrase very suitable here, "Assumption is the mother of all ****ups" and with the shivans that goes double

[Luis Dias]

No, you don't.  You know from AoA that the Shivans weren't using ECM.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually, you are somewhat wrong in there. Absence of evidence is an evidence of absence. Many times, not sufficient evidence, but still. Just ask any Bayesian. And that was all I could ever disagree with you for all the words you shared.

errrr no, it gives rise to possibility but it would be an assumption and there is a phrase very suitable here, "Assumption is the mother of all ****ups" and with the shivans that goes double

I'm technically true, and you are pragmatically true. So there.

[Apollo]

Superdestroyers: Man, why are we still having this discussion? I already said it's too expensive to be a viable option.

The Sathanas in AoA doesn't invalidate my point, it proves it. The Sathanas's initial appearance allowed the Shivans to destroy the Keeper, putting all the Vishnans out of action and forcing the GTVA into retreat. Would three Bellerophons have been able to do that? They might have destroyed the Keeper, but not as quickly and they could easily have been destroyed too. A shock jump by a supercapital, on the other hand, will often instantly win the battle by completely ruining the enemy's plans. This is partly because of the immense firepower supercapitals have, but it's also because of the emotional impact that such a huge ship produces. True, the Sathanas was later destroyed, but that's because the Shivans made the mistake of giving the enemy enough time to react to it (IIRC, I haven't played AoA in a while). Used properly, a supercapital could conceivably shock jump an entire battlegroup and get away with it.

The Vishnan Sacred Keeper is as big as a juggernaut, but in terms of armor and firepower it's midway between a destroyer and a supercapital, making it a poor example. As I said before, the Colossus got destroyed because its designers (and Command) had the arrogant assumption that no warship of comparable, let alone superior, size or firepower would ever exist.

True, a supercapital is Sathanas bait when inactive, but so is a destroyer. Similarly, shock jumping a destroyer is much easier than shock jumping a supercapital. Every single flaw that applies to a supercapital, with the exception of extreme cost, also applys to destroyers, and usually to a greater extent.

Hecate/Solaris:

Solaris/Hecate: take a look at the size of the Raynor/Titan TerPulse turrets.  They're huge.  The Hecate has turrets big enough, the Solaris most certainly doesn't.  There isn't enough physical space on the ship to fit TerPulse, and making some would add even more time and effort to the refit.  Mounting BGreens would also be tricky because it requires you to add a large amount of heavy-duty power conduits for those beams, so you couldn't have many.  Weapons, even those that look small from outside, have a huge amount of internal components.  They're like icebergs; what you see is only a small part.  You just don't seem to get how extensive this refit would need to be.  You're turning it into a whole new ship.  Build more corvettes instead.  They're a better use of those shipyards.

The Raynor has one or two fairly small TerPulse turrets, and the Solaris has many big Gattler Turrets and Point-Defense Turrets. Replacing a few Apocalypse launchers with BGreens (or, possibly, MjolnirBeam#Home) would allow it to mount beam cannons.

I think you're overestimating the amount of space a BGreen would take up. The GTSG Mjolnir, despite being no bigger than a freighter (whose size pales in comparison to the Solaris), can mount the MjolnirBeam#home, a fast-firing beam cannon with more DPS than the BGreen or the BBlue. Not only that, the Mjolnir can still function if those ring thingies are destroyed, which makes its beam weapon actually not that big. Now, we can probably assume that, with the BGreen's lower power (in terms of DPS and refire rate), it takes up no more space than the MjolnirBeam#home, if that. You could also remove some of the Solaris's armor (not a huge loss, considering how much it already has) to make room. Or, you could take out some of its Burst Flak, since in BP canon flak guns require large ammunition bunkers. Even if it only had, say, 4 BGreens and 6 TerPulse, that would significantly increase both its firepower and its endurance. Now, it would still have the disadvantage of short weapon range, but within that range it would be a truly terrifying opponent with much greater endurance than before.

The Hecate can at some angles fire with both of its bottom TerSlash, but it can only hit with one of them to the sides. The Solaris can hit with several Apocalypse torpedoes and Gattler Turrets at almost any angle.

These would be pretty extensive modifications, but they would still be much cheaper than building an entirely new destroyer or a new corvette team (unless it was a Deimos team).

ECM:

Yeah, the Shivans might have ECM. Although, considering that the alternate-universe Shivans had the same technology (somehow) of their retail counterparts, I find this unlikely. Of course, the GTVA also used very little (if any) ECM in retail (unless AWACS counts as ECM), so that doesn't neccesarily prove that the Shivans don't have ECM. ECM would, however, be an entirely new strategy for the species that has rarely ever used anything other than purely offensive tactics. But it doesn't really matter, since the GTVA's beams can also be jammed with ECM, and we've seen that happen much more frequently than the UEF's torpedoes have been jammed, which suggests that the UEF is better at ECM (and guarding against it) than the GTVA.

[General Battuta]

The Raynor has one or two fairly small TerPulse turrets

Might want to check your numbers and sizes.

and the Solaris has many big Gattler Turrets and Point-Defense Turrets. Replacing a few Apocalypse launchers with BGreens (or, possibly, MjolnirBeam#Home) would allow it to mount beam cannons

By what logic? How can you be sure of this?

Yeah, the Shivans might have ECM. Although, considering that the alternate-universe Shivans had the same technology (somehow) of their retail counterparts, I find this unlikely. Of course, the GTVA also used very little (if any) ECM in retail (unless AWACS counts as ECM), so that doesn't neccesarily prove that the Shivans don't have ECM. ECM would, however, be an entirely new strategy for the species that has rarely ever used anything other than purely offensive tactics. But it doesn't really matter, since the GTVA's beams can also be jammed with ECM, and we've seen that happen much more frequently than the UEF's torpedoes have been jammed, which suggests that the UEF is better at ECM (and guarding against it) than the GTVA.

In BP, all warships - in FS1, FS2, and the BP campaigns - use ECM constantly, to varying degrees of effect. ECM is part of the calculation of AI and armor class.

If you read the weapon tech descriptions as far back as FS1, you will find extremely complex electronics at work in the targeting of even fairly basic weapons. The BP fluff accounts for this level of behind-the-scenes sophistication.

[Apollo]

If I remember correctly, the Raynor has a few wide-but-short TerPulse turrets. I can't be sure, though. They might of been beam cannons.

How can I be sure the Solaris could be reconfigured to handle beam cannons? I really can't. I'm making that assumption based on all the FS1 TV-War era warships that were reconfigured to mount beam cannons. If the old Orion can have six beam cannons, I'd think the much more advanced Solaris could have four of them.

In BP, all warships - in FS1, FS2, and the BP campaigns - use ECM constantly, to varying degrees of effect. ECM is part of the calculation of AI and armor class.

If you read the weapon tech descriptions as far back as FS1, you will find extremely complex electronics at work in the targeting of even fairly basic weapons. The BP fluff accounts for this level of behind-the-scenes sophistication.

I remember those scientific descriptions, but I always thought they were just there to make the weapons seem more realistic.

There was little, if any, beam-jamming that occurred during FS1 and FS2. However, if you say that the Shivans have ECM in BP, I can't argue with that. I guess that means, in theory, the Shivans could jam beams or torpedoes.

I won't argue with you about your own mod, so I just have one question: could the Solaris be refitted in the way I describe?

[General Battuta]

While beam jamming is ECM, not all ECM is beam jamming. You saw the Shivans using electronic warfare during their first appearances in FS1.

I won't argue with you about your own mod, so I just have one question: could the Solaris be refitted in the way I describe?

I'm not sure anyone has tried yet.

[Apollo]

While beam jamming is ECM, not all ECM is beam jamming. You saw the Shivans using electronic warfare during their first appearances in FS1.

You mean when they had stealth?

I won't argue with you about your own mod, so I just have one question: could the Solaris be refitted in the way I describe?

I'm not sure anyone has tried yet.

So it might and it might not? I'm confused.

[Aesaar]

Similarly, shock jumping a destroyer is much easier than shock jumping a supercapital. Every single flaw that applies to a supercapital, with the exception of extreme cost, also applys to destroyers, and usually to a greater extent.

What?  In what way is shock jumping a destroyer and its battlegroup easier than shock jumping a single big superdestroyer?  This makes no sense.

Er, the Colossus had already destroyed one Sathanas and knew there were others before it got destroyed.  It was destroyed because the GTVA simply cannot build a ship that can survive a Sathanas shock jump.  They couldn't then, and they can't now.  End of story.  Doing it isn't too expensive, it just can't be done.

Solaris:


That's one of the Solaris' big dual gattler turrets compared to a Raynor's TerPulse.  Tell me again how the Solaris has enough space for numerous TerPulse turrets.


The Mjolnir is still a very modern beam cannon, better than many (all?) blue beams.  That it isn't mounted on any GTVA ships, even the modern ones, should tell you a lot about how hard that is to do.  If new TEI ships can't do it, the Solaris can't handle it.

But it doesn't really matter, since the GTVA's beams can also be jammed with ECM, and we've seen that happen much more frequently than the UEF's torpedoes have been jammed, which suggests that the UEF is better at ECM (and guarding against it) than the GTVA.

No, it suggests that the GTVA doesn't deploy torpedo jamming very much because they tend to use their AWACS in more offensive roles (jamming comms and vectoring SSMs).  There's one place in the campaign where an AWACS shows up and torpedo jamming would be useful.  That's the GTA J.E. Hoover in Aristeia.  And big surprise, it's jamming.

The Hecate can at some angles fire with both of its bottom TerSlash, but it can only hit with one of them to the sides. The Solaris can hit with several Apocalypse torpedoes and Gattler Turrets at almost any angle.

  And it can run out of ammo a lot quicker too.

So this is what you want to do with the Solaris:

- extend operational range, adding ammo compartments and additional fuel reserves.

- add beams and Hellstars, which would require significant time in a shipyard and very extensive modification of the ship's hull and power grid.

- Provide supply depots across the GTVA with ammunition and fuel for the Solaris.

All to give the GTVA a new destroyer class it doesn't in any way need because Titans and Raynors exist.

No.  Just, no.

[Phantom Hoover]

oh come on aesaar, how hard can it be. you just bolt a mjolnir to the solaris' hull, voila!

[Phantom Hoover]

The idea came up on IRC that one of the existing Solarises could be stationed in Epsilon Pegasi or Polaris, which are developed systems which were isolated from the rest of the core GTVA systems by the loss of Capella. Its strength is in suppressing and preventing civil disturbances in a well-supplied system; that makes it useless for fighting Shivans, but the GTVA is trying to prevent brush wars as well; those systems can't be terribly pleased that they're now on the fringes of civilisation, and they've rebelled before.

[MatthTheGeek]

I know from AoA that the Shivans haven't developed ECM abilities.

Proof ?

No, you don't.  You know from AoA that the Shivans weren't using ECM.

Not even that. It's not because it is not explicitly said that they didn't. Hell as far as we know it's perfectly possible Shivans were using ECM in the Great War and Capella in BP canon. Don't assume Command has to explicitly tell you everything that's going on.

If you read the weapon tech descriptions as far back as FS1, you will find extremely complex electronics at work in the targeting of even fairly basic weapons. The BP fluff accounts for this level of behind-the-scenes sophistication.

What he said.

Now, it's possible that they might have by the time they attack the GTVA again, but I doubt they will. It completely goes against their previous tactics

The Shivans have proven to have very changing, actually entirely unpredictable tactics. If you remember correctly, it's even the reason GTVA experts believe someone like Steele would fail horribly against the Shivans.

I'm not suggesting that the GTVA could match the Shivans' overwhelming firepower. That said, a warship like this would be useful because it would be a relatively cheap method of obtaining massive firepower, which is what the GTVA needs to deal with Sathanas juggernauts. They already have the ability to do so, but this would enhance that ability significantly, as this kind of warship would be cheap enough to mass-produce.

If the GTVA was able to 'mass-produce' destroyers they wouldn't need the Sol industry in the first place. They've already have trouble replacing most of their Capella-era ships with new-gen ships. And if you want relatively cheap with massive firepower, you're going to aim for corvettes like the Chimera and the Bellerophon, which also are much more subspace-agile than destroyers, won't be a crippling loss if destroyed, and are perfectly able to engage, damage and eventually destroy juggernaught-class targets.

Seriously, I understand you like the Solaris, but it isn't anywhere near the pinnacle destroyer design.  It has significant flaws that make it incompatible with GTVA line fleet doctrine.  This is a fact.  Accept it.

Yes. The critical part here is "incompatible with GTVA fleet doctrine". The GTVA has better use of its resources for building tons of new ships with Sol's industry than trying to retrofit the Solarises. Much like the UEF scrapped the old Orions, the Tevs are likely to scrap the Solarises. Remember also that from a political point of view, it would be better for them to remove from civilian sight all previous symbols of the UEF after their victory.

Would three Bellerophons have been able to do that? They might have destroyed the Keeper, but not as quickly and they could easily have been destroyed too.

Wait what.

Sense. You make none.

The Keeper was already on its knees. Three beller would definitely have one-shoted what was left of it. And they wouldn't have taken one single point of damage because the Keeper doesn't have any rear-facing weapon with enough range anyway.

Similarly, shock jumping a destroyer is much easier than shock jumping a supercapital.

Wrong. The smaller the ship, the better the subspace manoeuvrability. A destroyer would have much more chance to crash-jump the **** out if shock jumped than a supercap would.

[NGTM-1R]

You mean when they had stealth?

When you explicitly couldn't lock them because nobody had examined their electronic warfare gear, yeah.

[headdie]

what I think it comes down to is that shivan ECM tech exceeded the GTA/PVN ability to penetrate it and the scan data was needed to configure GTA/PVN ECCM systems

[Scotty]

Uh, yeah.  That's almost word for word a good definition of electronic warfare.

[qwadtep]

In any case, I somehow doubt that a species capable of sacrificing a few dozen juggernauts to blow up a sun really cares if you shoot a few beams at them.

[-Norbert-]

The "average citizen" would not be fully or even mostly transformed by Ubuntu. This is because in order for a society to fully embrace Ubuntu, it would have to exist in a very special set of circumstances, and its citizens might even need to be conditioned from an early age to accept it (not sure about that part, though). In any case, the situation you described (some citizens adopting all aspects of Ubuntu and others getting really angry at them and possibly attacking them for that) would not happen, because even if lots of people tried to fully adopt Ubuntu, most of them would be unable to, as that would require a huge change in their personality. Look at real-life religions to see what I mean--many religious people follow their religion in name but not so much in practice (I'm not bashing religion, there are some that do. ). I know Ubuntu isn't a religion, but it requires a similarly huge change in personality to fully adopt it.

Just look all over the world to see evidence of what I'm saying. Everytime a more "prosperous philosophy" so to say comes up, there are some who embrace it and some traditionalists who vehemently oppose it, often enough resulting in violence. And you don't even need religion for it. Just look at the globalization opposers that turn the economy conferences into battlefields time and again!

Beside that they don't need to succeed in fully adopting Ubuntu. The attempt alone might be enough to spark off confrontations with the hardcore traditionalists and/or those that only think about the next Shivan incursion.

While, under normal circumstances, this wouldn't be enough to topple governments and cause widespread rioting, remember how volatile the situation is in the GTVA. Even a small spark might ignite a great conflagration in that powderderkeg.

[Scotty]

Apollo, you're either completely missing or ignoring the fact that, during the events of FS2, the very idea of Earth was enough to cause a full-scale civil war.

Now Earth is actually within reach, and you think that the 'average citizen' isn't going to embrace it?