Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 1477

That is true, however a well organized strike can easily level the Sathanas.

Thinking about firepower to size ratio, the Sathanas truly doesn't seem to be a juggernaut when looking at possible loadout.

What do you think it truly is?

------------------
Ace
Webmaster
adamantpacified.org
[url="http://adamantpacified.org/"]http://adamantpacified.org/[/url]

Staff member
FreeSpace Watch
[url="http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/"]http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/[/url]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Neighbourhood AWACS
Posts: 173

It's an AWACS and gas miner, clearly.

Seriously though - even though a strike mission could take down a Sathanas, a strike mission can't take down 80 Sathanases.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Pottsboro, TX USA
Posts: 289

Why didn't they nuke a couple of the Sathanas??? That would get rid of some of them. I nuke is a lot more powerful than anything else in FS2.

------------------

What? I'm not crazy! But the rest of you are!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 1477

Actually, a high-yield nuke more than likely is not.

The Tsunami warhead in FS1 was an anti-matter device, and the Harbinger was a fusion warhead with three additional fission warheads. (i.e. three nukes from 300 years in the future plus a big fusion bomb on it)

Overall, take the Harbinger's damage and make it divided by 4, and that is how effective a nuclear device is on the hull structures used in the FS universe.

The ships are on average shielded by EM emissions as well as radiation, so these effects of a nuke are negated.

Disruptor based weapons as well as EMP warheads use techniques designed to disrupt power systems for their damage, these systems are far more potent than a nuclear bomb's EM pulse. (EMP missiles simulate an EMP effect, but rely on different principles then a straight pulse)


------------------
Ace
Webmaster
adamantpacified.org
[url="http://adamantpacified.org/"]http://adamantpacified.org/[/url]

Staff member
FreeSpace Watch
[url="http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/"]http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/[/url]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Lo-Fidelity All Star
Posts: 2273

The Helios has a 10 GIGAton yield....and you saw what that does to a Sathanas. Not a great deal.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2001
Location: Israel
Posts: 144

You didn't mention the Death star
Besides, I think that the best way to make an effeective fleet is using three different types of ships in the right composition:
first type is fighters, which are ammazingly effective against capships (a few good bombing runs will make that nasty juggernaut look alot less threatning, when it's engines are disabled, and main guns are offline). Second type is the light cruisers, of which a few in formation can kick the crap out of any fighter attack. the third type is the large ships, which can destroy the light cruisers easily, are vulnerable to fighters.
That was just an example (you could design more types, like a large ship meant to destroy larger ships, fighters meant to destroy bombers, light cruisers with some anti-capship armaments and so on), and the reality is alot more complex, but I believe that a fleet will always be more effectivfe than a single ship, because a few specialized ships are better than one jack of all trades, but master of none.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2001
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4

Just a thought people. Whats with the beams?

I mean modern Naval doctrine is to use missiles for ship vs ship engagements and guns and missiles for point defence. Yes I know that the logistics of expendable munitions as opposed to energy weapons is greater BUT you still have to supply fuel for the ship so it can power its energy armament. (Power doesn't just appear from nowhere you know)

Therefore looking at the above statements surely it would be more cost effective to field missile capable ships. Hell if you can build fighters then surely you can build effective stand off missiles? They don't have the range? Just stick a fighter powerplant onto a warhead, now they do. They don't do enough damage? Just how much explosive can you shove into a fighter sized missile?

Suddenly you have a capability which immediately forces a change in doctrine and tactics. A long range, highly damaging weapon. You can now attack outside of a beam warships energy envelope so you stay alive longer. Beam equipped ships now have to get in range to fire through a swarm of missiles while the launhing ship just manouvres to keep the range open.

You don't even need powerful sensors on the missile as the firing ship has a continuosly updating plot of the battle, just slave the weapons to it (they already do for beam weapons). Launch a swarm of those and lets see an enemy's point defense deal with that! Now combine that with fighters and bombers incoming and you'll give the enemy an acute case of the willys.

You can even use the current missiles available to the fighters (30 harbingers are definitely gonna hurt whatever they hit. And if thats not enough, fire another volley). But on the other hand only the large modern ships (in todays navy's) carry ICBMs (subs anyone?)

Now I'm not saying that beam weapons are redundent but it seems to me that there's too much reliance on them. Add some missile ships to the mix and watch the enmy run!!


------------------
Of all the things I've lost, I think I miss my mind the most

[This message has been edited by Glare (edited 06-05-2001).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Cold Northland!
Posts: 8392

Except that the same beam envelope makes it really easy to track incoming warheads and neutralize them hundreds of meters before they impact the ship.

In BWO, Sol uses a standoff Torpedo rather than a closer in bomb like the Cyclops. The idea is to swarm the target with smaller warheads.

This is actually less effective than a few Cyclops at close range because Terran turrets and AAA's are really good at taking out those stand-off weapons.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 1477

Stand off weaponry is generally ineffective.

Originally the Semnai was intended fo field mainly stand-off torpedo class weaponry, however after tests the impressive visual was thrown away due to poor balance.

Overall, the most effective stand off weapon is either energy based (can't be intercepted by physical weaponry in that case) such as the Golgotha's meson cannon and the Machina Terra team's weapons, as well as if a missile system it must be able to be deployed instantly within hostile defense grids. (tBE's experimental Tyche ETS system)

------------------
Ace
Webmaster
adamantpacified.org
[url="http://adamantpacified.org/"]http://adamantpacified.org/[/url]

Staff member
FreeSpace Watch
[url="http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/"]http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/[/url]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

That's true. Launching missiles from long range wouldn't work too well when flak and beams can vaporize them so easily, and their shockwaves cause them to destroy each other.



------------------
Sushi- the OTHER white meat!

Accelerate your game-[url="http://sushicw.homestead.com/files/freespace/velocity.htm"]Velocity Mod[/url]
[url="http://sushicw.homestead.com/files/freespace/index.htm"]Sushi's Freespace Zone[/url]-future home of loads of cool stuff!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Tania Austrailis
Posts: 3322

hm... that must be a problem for the hound dog... or is it?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 1477

It will be when trying to destroy the Vijahrot with them

------------------
Ace
Webmaster
adamantpacified.org
[url="http://adamantpacified.org/"]http://adamantpacified.org/[/url]

Staff member
FreeSpace Watch
[url="http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/"]http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/[/url]

[This message has been edited by Ace (edited 06-05-2001).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Tania Austrailis
Posts: 3322

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ace:
Vijahrot

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2001
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4

quote:

---

Overall, the most effective stand off weapon is either energy based (can't be intercepted by physical weaponry in that case) such as the Golgotha's meson cannon and the Machina Terra team's weapons, as well as if a missile system it must be able to be deployed instantly within hostile defense grids. (tBE's experimental Tyche ETS system)

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 1477

Overall, you described a combat-deployed Mjolnir.

------------------
Ace
Webmaster
adamantpacified.org
[url="http://adamantpacified.org/"]http://adamantpacified.org/[/url]

Staff member
FreeSpace Watch
[url="http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/"]http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/[/url]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Downton, Diego Garcia, BIOT
Posts: 421

stand off wepons are great, IF you can get them past the point defenses. from personal experianse, i find that the stand off weapons are more effective when used at point blank ranges or closer. also, i have been able to successfuly soften up enemy fighter squadrons by using stand off weapons on them, this is extremally effective against bomber formation since it softens them up for capitol ship weapons.

as for the weaknesses of capital ships, if you were to form proper battle groups in formations similar to those i have laid out in my 3gr file (available to all who e-mail me a request) the weaknesses of the alot of the ships is negated by the presense of ships who are stronger in those particular aspects. it also makes it suicidal for those lone deathrides that we all like to use against those enemy capital ships.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 1477

Yes, but when used at point blank range, it's a point blank range weapon, not a standoff weapon

The real trick in the FS universe is finding a way to disrupt ship systems for a handful of seconds, and then unleash the volley.

Disruption missiles from FS1 were easily adapted against via shielded subsystems against it's fequency jamming.

EMP warheads only affect small scales and disrupt tracking systems on capital ships to a small effect.

However, I'm sure the alliance is developing a new disruption warhead technology

------------------
Ace
Webmaster
adamantpacified.org
[url="http://adamantpacified.org/"]http://adamantpacified.org/[/url]

Staff member
FreeSpace Watch
[url="http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/"]http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/[/url]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Tania Austrailis
Posts: 3322

I miss that disruptor missile from FS1, fire it, and the enemy ship was diisrupted for 5 seconds... oh those were the days...*sigh*

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2001
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4

quote:

---

Overall, you described a combat-deployed Mjolnir.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Denial
Posts: 84

how about if you use the same concept of swarm missles but on a larger scale? instead of 8 tornadoes how about 4 harppons or 3 or 4 Cycs?? We need a flyable gunship for that i guess. A slash beam in the front 1 primary, say a Subach or Kayser depending on wepons energy balance, 2 secondaries , the new swar varieant, the or 4 Cycs or 4 harps, and maybe a new subsystem that lets you jamm the ships systems. kind of like a comm jammer but on a grander scale....hey theres an idea for a new AWAC..instead of just blockig comm emmissions or engine emmisons make it block the whole ship with the wrong IFF make it find the exact frequency of the ships controls and let it jam it...then u have a disarmed ship w/o the damage..just a thought

__________________
C:\WINDOWS C:\WINDOWS\GO C:\PC\CRAWL

C:\DOS C:\DOS\RUN RUN\DOS\RUN

I pray that when i go into battle, that i will shoot straight and be valiant, fight for what i believe in and for those i believe in, and if I die in battle let not my sacrifice be in vain. --Azrael, TheAvenging Angel

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged