Return to “General”

Post

Re: Naval Review

#31
I wonder: to what extent will NPC players be able to figure out what actually works best for them, and then research, build and deploy those kinds of ships?

Will a faction's "personality" dictate the fleet design and engagement principles they prefer? Or will those be developed primarily in response to environmental conditions? Or will some factions use a mix of those?

That would feel a lot more interesting to me than a pre-defined "rock always beats scissors" design.
Post

Re: Naval Review

#32
Battle ships ten to focus on LARGE GUNS while cruser focus on missle battery's and medium size guns.
You also forgot light cariers, whes would be destroyer size and they would carry no more than 6 scout ships,
or other small 1 or 2 man craft. You could also add Drone Carriers to this class, they would house dozens
of tiny specialized unmanned ships.
"A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke
Post

Re: Naval Review

#33
Gazz wrote:
Poet1960 wrote:While battleships can be powerful and fun to play with, these days, carriers are pretty much the top of the heap, because of their ability to project their power or influence. ;)
That's because offensive technology has vastly outpaced defensive technology.

If battleships could have armor and shields to shrug off the small weapons that fighters carry - and there was an actual war where this mattered - battleships would start to look interesting.

Since we're working with handwavium and unobtainium, battleships can be as well protected as we say they are. =P
Actually, I remember reading something relatively recently (sorry, I can't quite find it) that the idea of a battleship is not quite dead. Most ships these days are fitted with smaller-calibre guns and missiles, which are of great use for precision targeting, but are unlikely to get the job done in the event of an amphibious landing on a defended beach. There's something about a REALLY big gun that spooks the enemy. Consider the number of German attacks broken up in the aftermath of D-Day by the 16-inch guns of the Allied battleships cruising offshore. Being caught in an artillery barrage is demoralising enough without the artillery firing at you launching shells of a calibre 4 times larger and 75 times heavier than regular field artillery (comparing a 16-in battleship gun to the British 25-pounder). The battleship as a capital ship maybe dead, but as fire support, they may still have use.
Post

Re: Naval Review

#34
We have to keep in mind though that in space fights with significant defensive technologies the battleship and 'heavier' vessels would undergo a resurgence strictly through their capacity to overwhelm defended assets. Carriers and Battleships would ultimately be on the same footing. Carriers are powerful, but ultimately they can be defended against through heavy use of anti-fighter/anti-bomber measures and assets. Now if you can setup an effective fighter screen your carrier is effectively neutered. Battleships would be much harder to do that to.

Keeping in mind of course that we are not talking about earth style naval combat. Water naval combat is not something that should be used as a basis with which to define the ship usefulness in LT.
Post

Re: Naval Review

#39
I asked because I've just read something about mass effects turian dreadnought class and they mentioned the titan class, an even bigger ship, built to defend against the reapers. (10-15km long)

When you look at the eve online universe, they also use titans as the biggest ships. (after dreadnoughts)

So maybe they could serve as a mobile HQ for some of the strongest forces in the universe, each with his own special origin story, because they are built in desperate times. Comparable to histories of cities.
Post

Re: Naval Review

#40
Rulin wrote:I've just read recently something about mass effects turian dreadnought class and they mentioned the titan class, an even bigger ship, built to defend against the reapers. (10-15km long)

When you look at the eve online universe, they also use titans as the biggest ships. (after dreadnoughts)
All of these are pretty bad arguments for implementing something special for titans.
As they are literally just more of the same.
Bigger ship with bigger guns.
Nothing different from a big battleship.
Post

Re: Naval Review

#41
Cornflakes_91 wrote: All of these are pretty bad arguments for implementing something special for titans.
I wasn't really arguing, it was more an explanation why I asked, what you guys think about a titan class ship.

I'm no expert, but I could imagine that these really huge ships would only built once or twice in a fleet.
When people talk about them, they use their name. Again, similar to cities.
Because they are really huge and espensive, only big factions are able to built them, or alliances.
They build them to have something that is intimidating, hard to destroy and maybe to protect the important military/political personal against really dangerous enemies.

If the conflicts in LT are more between corps and factions, and there are no mysterious evil invaders, then titans are probably not needed, but still nice to look at. :geek:
Post

Re: Naval Review

#43
If the definition of 'Titans' is to be 'An excessively large battleship', that works for me.

I think he's asking specifically about mega-ships that still fill the role of small ships.

Sure, you can build them, but think of it this way; would you really spend that much money on a ship that if it got damaged, may end up setting you back quite a bit regarding cost? If anything, it's a late-game to end-game type thing you'd want to build anyways.
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Naval Review

#44
Everyone interested in Sci-Fi lit should check out Jack Campbell's the Lost Fleet. It's the best I have read for realistic, large scale naval combat, and has some interesting insights into fleet composition, weapon types, and ship classes. Also, the whole series is a damn good read.

Okay, in space, size is not a factor for maneuverability correct? its just a thrust to mass ratio... or am I wrong? <This has nothing to do with gameplay>

Jack Campbell also uses a weapon type I haven't seen anywhere else, kind of a space shotgun. It accelerates a mass of ball bearings that separate and hit over a wide surface. This is intended to overwhelm a ships shields. Its only effective at closer ranges, but is more devastating to shields. This is not a railgun. Railguns fire shots one at a time, which gives minor amounts of time for shields to recover.
Post

Re: Naval Review

#45
MyNameWuzTaken wrote:Okay, in space, size is not a factor for maneuverability correct? its just a thrust to mass ratio... or am I wrong?
True but mass grows with a power of 3 while steering (thruster diameter) grows with a power of 2. Unless you use Humbug Tech or whatever technobabble you care to cook up. =)
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests

cron