So..

Starshatter: The Gathering Storm extends the classic space sim by combining fighter and starship combat in a single dynamic campaign game.
Kuokkanen
Posts: 3742
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:16 pm

RE: So..

Post by Kuokkanen »

all Capital ships should be able to launch fighters and small craft.
Why?
a small complement of 1 or 2 fighters to scout ahead.
In real life that is not for anything lighter than destroyer. Am I right? milo has took examples from RL for his ships.
Bombers would be great if it isnot asking too much.
Already there. Look at Cobra, it's bomber right?
As for stealth spacecraft, the subject is tricky but a cloaking device would be great
Uhhuh! You call stealth tricky and throw idea about cloaked (invisible) ship!?
Perhaps add railroads and roads between the cities.
Jaiksis! You hit the score! Bombing of heavily defended bridges would be something!

What comes to patrol crafts, I 2nd. You know System Patrol Craft from TIE Fighter, X-Wing vs TIE Fighter and X-Wing Alliance? Nice little thing. Then there is some scout ship which has hyperdrive. Delta-class Escort Shuttle seems to be all around fighting machine which has sufficient speed to compete at least with bombers. Starshatter variants of those would be nice and I would like to fly them.
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars
User avatar
DamoclesX
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: Canada

RE: So..

Post by DamoclesX »

um, because ever ship needs a damn hanger bay, unless you think they get crew replacments and cargo by throwing it through space from the windows

not anything lighter then a destroyer??? what happened to frigates, corvettes, patrol boats........

real bombers is a must look into, major engines to get to the target and back fast, massive payloads, but slow and lumbering, protected by turrents.

stealth is very tricky once you start breaking it down into real world physics
Jason Blaz
Way to much to list here!
User avatar
Duken
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:40 pm
Contact:

RE: So..

Post by Duken »

ORIGINAL: DamoclesX
um, because ever ship needs a damn hanger bay, unless you think they get crew replacments and cargo by throwing it through space from the windows
Yes, and every ship doesn't need a hanger that can support fighters.
ORIGINAL: DamoclesX
real bombers is a must look into, major engines to get to the target and back fast, massive payloads, but slow and lumbering, protected by turrents.
Would that be a bomber or a really small capital ship?
ORIGINAL: DamoclesX
stealth is very tricky once you start breaking it down into real world physics
And hiding something from senors is a whole lot easier than hiding it visually.
Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure - IXJac
How do I earn IQ points? - JeanLucPicard
Inquisitors are people too. They appreciate presents just as much as the next man. - Imperial Overlord
User avatar
Vjolt
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:21 am
Contact:

RE: So..

Post by Vjolt »

Demolcles: I wish I could find milos OLD version of the Orion carrier...(starts looking).

You could try here, its an archive of starshatter.com history. I doubt you'll be able to download any files, but theres a chance you can use it to find the old orion.

Diabolico: Excellent idea and perhaps even a very small PDB gun elmplacement inside the middle rear of the hangar (sort of like in Stargate SG1, where they had that 0,5 cal MG pointing at the Gate), so that destroying an enemy capital ship with a fighter from inside the hangar bay becomes impossible

yes!! I'm so glad someone else watches stargate. I whatch it with my dad all the time. I hate the Atlantis one, its too cheezy. If neone wants to do a stargate mod lemme no. A giant stargate that works like a farcaster would be so cool.
Rehab is For Quitters...
User avatar
DamoclesX
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: Canada

RE: So..

Post by DamoclesX »

Yes, and every ship doesn't need a hanger that can support fighters.

If it can support shuttles and what not it can support fighters, hey, if you want to cripple your fleet by having some ships with 0 fighter projection ability go hard:) i"m sure it wont be THAT bad of an idea when the enemy fleet can use scouts to track your every movment and launch long range assualts on your position and the only thing you have to slow them down is close range PDS

try to think of it this way, angis cruisers and what not in the us fleet use helo pads and stuff for crew cargo and what not,t hey also use those helos for Anti ship operations also, so just take that a bit farther into future.

It my view, it would be suicide to have a ship in space without SOME kind of fighter screen, I highly doubt ships would stay in massive fleets with carriers to support them ever second of their lives, theyw ould need to travel around, respond to pirates, assist in emergencys, what not.


Would that be a bomber or a really small capital ship?

lost me on this one,


And hiding something from senors is a whole lot easier than hiding it visually.

um, you got that backwards.
Today, the us is activly working on invisibility suits, they project what is behind them, up close it wouldnt work well, but from a medium distance you wouldnt know the difference.

thats visually.

now, wonder how effective that would be against xrays, radar, or infer-red? usless
Jason Blaz
Way to much to list here!
User avatar
Duken
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:40 pm
Contact:

RE: So..

Post by Duken »

ORIGINAL: DamoclesX
<snip>
Extra Parts, Extra Crew, Mantinace Areas all take up space, that could be used to increase crew survivability, mission length ect. This is not to say fighters are bad.
ORIGINAL: DamoclesX
lost me on this one
Would a plane with a huge engine, pd turrets and a whole lot of missiles be a fighter or a small cap ship?
ORIGINAL: DamoclesX
um, you got that backwards.
Today, the us is activly working on invisibility suits, they project what is behind them, up close it wouldnt work well, but from a medium distance you wouldnt know the difference.

thats visually.

now, wonder how effective that would be against xrays, radar, or infer-red? usless
I was thinking of the stealth bombers. Do you have a site with info on the suit? I don't doubt you, this is just the first I've heard of it.
Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure - IXJac
How do I earn IQ points? - JeanLucPicard
Inquisitors are people too. They appreciate presents just as much as the next man. - Imperial Overlord
User avatar
TheDeadlyShoe
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 3:06 pm

RE: So..

Post by TheDeadlyShoe »

um, because ever ship needs a damn hanger bay, unless you think they get crew replacments and cargo by throwing it through space from the windows
airlocks. ships dont need hangar bays. they don't even need to dock, they can just float over supplies and men on a line or something.

as for large objects like torpedoes, it would be ridiculous to try to reload them through a hangar bay; reloading directly from outside the hull (for a rack) or through specific external ports is more likely, i should think.

also, the scouting function is done by probes, which are small automated scout spacecraft anyways. In any engagement (like in the SS campaigns), a carrier will probably be nearby to provide whatever more is needed.

Arguing excessively about realism is besides the point, really. For example, the combat ranges and speeds modelled in starshatter are silly. All that matters is internal consistency.

besides, everyone just eyeballs the enemy ships and then launches probes towards them anyways :)
@TheDeadlyShoe> Unless, say, you could make black holes at will.
@Razeam> I can do that but I don't want to.
User avatar
DamoclesX
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: Canada

RE: So..

Post by DamoclesX »

I"ll look into thos suits, I read about them a few years ago, see what I can dig up.

Airlocks would be great for crew, what about bigger parts, what about a drive core that is 2 decks big? some things couldnt be broken down large enough to be pushed through an airlock I would think.

Also, it would take a hell of a lot of time to transport 1000's of gallons of fuel food or whatever through a airlock ment for people, while one medium transport could dock in a hanger bay with a large portion of it.
Jason Blaz
Way to much to list here!
User avatar
TheDeadlyShoe
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 3:06 pm

RE: So..

Post by TheDeadlyShoe »

What makes you think the airlock would be meant for people? I should think that airlocks and access passages would be designed with resupply in mind. Fuel and other liquids/gases would probably use their own connections anyways; they're not going to be hauling gas cans through. Mind that any starship would probably have extremely efficient recycling measures, including for food, water, and air. This would simplify resupply immensely, although no system would be 100% efficient and variation / replenishment would be necessary. Also, being as that the starships use fusion engines for power and that a plasma engine would be very efficient reaction-mass wise, a starship could theoretically collect sufficient hydrogen and reaction mass indefinitely given a solar system to peruse.

Besides which, you don't replace a 'drive core' by floating it through the hangar. Look at the size of the things; they're huge on a major ship. Stuff like that calls for piecemeal repair or a visit to a shipyard!

Mind that on a starship the entire exterior hull is completely accessible in space, and in zero-G; it's not beyond conception that even the Orion's massive engines could be completely replaced in the field given a skilled engineering crew. Of course, such skilled engineering crews are most likely to be located at shipyards. :)
@TheDeadlyShoe> Unless, say, you could make black holes at will.
@Razeam> I can do that but I don't want to.
Kuokkanen
Posts: 3742
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:16 pm

RE: So..

Post by Kuokkanen »

What's up Damo? I sure hope you are joking around.
ever ship needs a damn hanger bay, unless you think they get crew replacments and cargo by throwing it through space from the windows
If it can support shuttles and what not it can support fighters
Mir and ISS space stations can support shuttles some way, but no way they can support fighters. And what? Do you think astronauts deliver stuff to stations by throwing them out of windows?
Airlocks would be great for crew, what about bigger parts, what about a drive core that is 2 decks big?
Ship to drydock, some hull plates out off the way, drive core change, hull plates back in place, some testing everything works and back in action. Or then drive core would be delivered in parts and assembled inside the ship.
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars
User avatar
DamoclesX
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: Canada

RE: So..

Post by DamoclesX »

yes, because when your behind enemy lines, and your supply lines are 10,000 light years long, everybody knows you have a nice big drydock to drive into to get the repairs done right?:)

lets see, andromeda, stargate, atlantis, startrek, starwars, all the big scifi shows show that any decent capital ship has hangers that can support fighters, its not rocket science here guys, fighters would need the same kind of infastructor as shuttles, and dont tell me there would be any ship of destroyer class or larger that wouldnt support shuttles[8|]

Piece meal repairs would be done, but thats another matter, the main topic here is greater fighter abilitys on all the ships.

Look at babylon5, even the corvettes have fighter launch ability, hell some transports do.

Any ship that lacks fighter protection getting jumped by another ship WITH fighters is screwed period.


The carriers need to be refined more into massive carriers, 50+ fighters, 4-6 launch bays and recovery bays, massive medium and short range PDS systems, they need to act like carriers.


think b5, the hyperion and olympus were average ea ships, they had limited fighters and were used for day to day operations, the omega was basically a carrier/destroyer, it had something like 48 fighters and the weapons of the destroyer, then you get into the REAL carriers like the aog ships, where they had 100+ fighters.

each ship can act alone, or be combined into a fleet and fill a role.

right now, the current ss ships are usless acting alone, they lack fighters, or heavy weapons, or both.
Jason Blaz
Way to much to list here!
User avatar
TheDeadlyShoe
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 3:06 pm

RE: So..

Post by TheDeadlyShoe »

Any reasonable shuttle would not demand that a support infrastructure be in place; an airlock would be perfectly sufficient and for efficiency is all that is desirable. You could easily add fuel and air lines to an airlock connection, as well. Supporting fighters eats into space, effort, crewmen, pilots, and other materials which could otherwise be used for torpedoes, point defense batteries, or X-Lasers. Additionally any large hole would weaken the hull structure. You could instead use a structurally 'strap-on' hangar, but it would be extremely vulnerable to damage. On top of that, fighters are dangerous things to have around, having a tendency to crash, explode, what have you.

For example, in Battlestar Galactica, the President's ship lands in the Galactica's hangar bay. This is simply not necessary, and far more dangerous that simply docking the President's ship to an exterior airlock.

If a small warship needs an independently maintained shuttle capability, they could just strap the shuttle on the ship wherever and take it places. Why not?
@TheDeadlyShoe> Unless, say, you could make black holes at will.
@Razeam> I can do that but I don't want to.
Kuokkanen
Posts: 3742
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:16 pm

RE: So..

Post by Kuokkanen »

lets see, andromeda, stargate, atlantis, startrek, starwars, all the big scifi shows show that any decent capital ship has hangers that can support fighters
Don't you get it? milo has took example from real navy we have today!
Look at babylon5, even the corvettes have fighter launch ability
Look at Vorchan, it don't carry fighters.
If a small warship needs an independently maintained shuttle capability, they could just strap the shuttle on the ship wherever and take it places. Why not?
Yea, why not? It is argueable whether Corellian Corvette (CRV) can carry fighters or not, but Lambda-class Shuttle (SHU) can dock on it and ride with it. When Damo refers to helipads, starships could have something similar, but those pads don't need to be inside the ship. Shuttle (or what ever) could just dock outside of the ship, like Union-class DropShip docks JumpShip outside of the hull.
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars
User avatar
DamoclesX
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: Canada

RE: So..

Post by DamoclesX »

1 ship out of all of them? its always easy to find the sore thumb in the crowd if you look real hard, but it does not mean its a good idea to follow!

I prefer my idea more, adding launch ability to more then just carriers so now thats decided...

next topic.

Interceptors? as in fighters that acell really fast and have long range missiles, but suck at dogfighting, they would basicallyb e a new group, buit to provide long range recon, and to intercept bombers.

they would be to light to carry antiship missiles, it would add to much mass and slow them down, same with any real kinds of attitude thrusters
Jason Blaz
Way to much to list here!
User avatar
Diabolico
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Matty, you are a pain!

Post by Diabolico »

Don't you get it? milo has took example from real navy we have today!

Do you think space combat will look the same as 20th century Naval combat, 5.000 years from now? Jesus, this has been discussed before!
Look at Vorchan, it don't carry fighters.

Yeah, but look at the majority that carries them and as Damocles said :
Look at babylon5, even the corvettes have fighter launch ability, hell some transports do.

And every other space show carries them so SS should too.
think b5, the hyperion and olympus were average ea ships, they had limited fighters and were used for day to day operations, the omega was basically a carrier/destroyer, it had something like 48 fighters and the weapons of the destroyer, then you get into the REAL carriers like the aog ships, where they had 100+ fighters.

each ship can act alone, or be combined into a fleet and fill a role.

right now, the current ss ships are usless acting alone, they lack fighters, or heavy weapons, or both.

This is so true...[&o]
lets see, andromeda, stargate, atlantis, startrek, starwars, all the big scifi shows show that any decent capital ship has hangers that can support fighters, its not rocket science here guys, fighters would need the same kind of infastructor as shuttles, and dont tell me there would be any ship of destroyer class or larger that wouldnt support shuttles

I agree. Any decent corvette would at least carry 1 shuttle and 2 fighters, not to say the least.
Yea, why not? It is argueable whether Corellian Corvette (CRV) can carry fighters or not, but Lambda-class Shuttle (SHU) can dock on it and ride with it. When Damo refers to helipads, starships could have something similar, but those pads don't need to be inside the ship. Shuttle (or what ever) could just dock outside of the ship, like Union-class DropShip docks JumpShip outside of the hull.

Jesus! Why do you want to limit SS to current 20th century ships?[:-] Helipads, for a 1 km long ship? Yu must be joking... dock and stay docked means beeing vulnerable while everybody is sleeping inside the mothership you are docked too...

You remind me of the Spanish inquisition telling Galileo that the world doesn't turn around the sun PERIOD! And that anybody saying the contrary should shut up!

I am not the type to complain but you should leave Damocles alone with his work.
At least he has done lots of modding and even a full B5 conversion.
I haven't seen any work from you yet!

Additionaly everybody here in the community supports a bigger and better SS so if you want to keep with a limited universe, stay with the demo version or build a mod where capital ships carry helicopters on pads.[:D]

Instead of spending your money in buying many other games, perhaps you should give preference to SS.

And the freespace forum you asked me for to support your freespace mod on SSC is still empty.

=S=
User avatar
TheDeadlyShoe
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 3:06 pm

RE: Matty, you are a pain!

Post by TheDeadlyShoe »

if examples from the B5 universe must be supplied- i am not exactly well versed in B5- but wasn't there an episode with a pirate carrier that used all externally carried fighters?

as for strapping the ship on anywhere- it is not a helipad concept- it is the only smart way to carry the shuttle! anything that can harm the shuttle through shields can harm the shuttle through a hangar too [;)] this if course presupposes that a ship needs to carry a shuttle- which is not necessarily true. It's nice, sure, but it adds complications and if you always operate in concert with a carrier its not even close to necessary. its a question of whether you want one big ship that can do everything or multiple smaller ships that are specialized- if again we must supply examples from scifi series, i believe that in Startrek, this exact evolution occured, from the galaxy class 'flagship' into warships and science ships...

And for interceptors- don't F-32s do this? Still, I suppose you could improve. Fighters with short prep times and humongous acceleration and top speed are desirable (with the downsides of low hull, very low endurance [fuel that is], and limited missile loadout- say, 2 rails only). consider what happens in starshatter- you order an interception of a bombing attack, yet the velocities of the bombers are so high that your fighters pass them and turn around hopelessly behind without a prayer of stoppping the bombers before they launch missiles. this if of course with an interception launch; interceptions ordered with already flying fighters prove much more successful, I find. So a fast interceptor ought to be able to reverse course and catch up with the bombers in short order, although its low hull, endurance, etc etc ought to kill it for other roles.

Perhaps another compromise- limited gun endurance- could be considered.

It doesn't really seem like a Terellian thing, though- they are very endurance oriented, considering the resilience of their fighters. Maybe a difference could be framed in that the Terellian interceptors are tougher but mount only a single gun with normal capacitor level (in how long it can fire continuously and recharge), while the Marakan interceptors utilize two or three guns with very limited capacitors, and of course very, very limited recharge times. I also thought about saying Marakans ought to have no guns on their interceptors, but that would be cruel considering how many missiles it takes to take out a Terellian attack fighter :)
@TheDeadlyShoe> Unless, say, you could make black holes at will.
@Razeam> I can do that but I don't want to.
User avatar
DamoclesX
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Matty, you are a pain!

Post by DamoclesX »

good thoughts keep them comming, it could really help out.
Jason Blaz
Way to much to list here!
User avatar
Dragonlead
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 6:25 am

RE: Interceptors

Post by Dragonlead »

There are always tradeoffs. Packing limited use interceptors means you have to trade in some of the more well-rounded designs that can do multiple missions. I have always understood carriers (meaning any starship capable of carrying a squadron or more) to be offensive in nature (force projection and deterrence and all that). As such, interceptors COULD be of limited value as the discussion so far has been on taking down approaching strike packages.

They would probably be best suited for station/colony defense where they can be housed in LARGE numbers. Again, it all depends on how they are designed and used.

Just my $0.02.

V/R
USAF Ret.
Kuokkanen
Posts: 3742
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:16 pm

RE: Interceptors

Post by Kuokkanen »

Do you think space combat will look the same as 20th century Naval combat, 5.000 years from now?
Do you want argue with milo about it?
Helipads, for a 1 km long ship?
What SS ship goes even close 1 km?
I haven't seen any work from you yet!
Image
You have now [:D]
And the freespace forum you asked me for to support your freespace mod on SSC is still empty.
Was that for Mehrunes?
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars
User avatar
Diabolico
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: France
Contact:

RE: Interceptors

Post by Diabolico »

Do you want argue with milo about it?

Why not?
What SS ship goes even close 1 km?

Orion CV = 1,5 Km

Devastator CA = 1,2 Km

Courageous CLA = 685 m

Goliath CV = 1,2 Km

Wolf DD = 623 m

Dragon CV = 1,9 Km

Vendetta CA = 1,1 Km

Volnaris DD = 622 m

This enough?

In case you are wondering where these came from : Mehrunes modding page

Click over ship list.
You have now

That's good! Glad you are finnaly into modding. Yet, this is little in scale against big modders like Damocles, Pheagey, Melkor, Starbuck and others that are working on major conversions. All those mentioned above share Damocle's perspective, not to mention the huge numbers of fans claiming and demanding a SS universe up to the height of the major sci-fi shows, where huge Dreadnoights and Battleships roam the Galaxy and carry their own complement of fighters and small craft.
Was that for Mehrunes?

Your nickname in SSC is Akuma and you have asked me to create a forum for you, as you told me you had just begun working on a freespace mod.
I'd like to see that you are making good use of that support, like the other modders on their own dedicated forums.
As of now, I haven't seen a post from you about your freespace mod.

=S=
Post Reply

Return to “Starshatter: The Gathering Storm”