Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zai]

1. Obviously there is a new race, the ancient race the game mentions a few times.

Been known for quite a while that they'd be in the game. The game (pre-expansions, at least) will only have 6 factions though, just like AMoC/ANY SotS.

Six factions? With the Suul'ka added, which will be thrown out? Going by the available previews, it's not Humans, Liir, Hivers, Zuul, or Morrigi. So, Tarka? I wonder why. They're the last race I'd expect to get wiped out by... just about anything, Suul'ka included. Well, maybe beside humans, for plot reasons.

No, no. Six factions, not races. There's 7 races (at least in base SotS2). There are 6 different...unions(? another word for faction) of these races. I believe Kerberos confirmed a while back (back when I was paying attention; Kerberos provided too few answers for my attention to be kept) that Tarka were in the game individually and whatever-Morrigi's-racial-conglomeration (mainly Morrigi, which is why you get the obviously-Morrigi-looking ships) is called were in the game, and hinted that Zuul was being split so that they had no uniquely racial ships (as Lightning4 said, part joining up with the Liir, part joining back up with the Suul'ka).

[PPE:] According to somebody else who has been paying more attention than I (and I don't care to double check): the Tarka, Morrigi Empire (with split-offs from other races), Hivers, Humans, Liir/Zuul, Suul'ka/Zuul is the confirmed faction set-up for the base game, with another 2(+? I doubt they'd limit themselves if there's still demand for more and more can be justified in the SotS2-updated back-story) factions to be added in hypothetical expansions (though that last bit seems more like speculation based on SotS's expansion history).

[Krelian]

so basically, as we can asume liir/zuul will use liir ships & tech, and sul'ka/zuul will use sul'ka tech, same with morrigui, gameplay wise we will end up with the same 6 races as SotS1, but changing zuul with sul'ka

[Sean Mirrsen]

I'm suspecting it'll be mostly a nomenclature change. Cruisers will be as destroyers are in SotS1, Leviathans will be as dreads are, and destroyers... hell, I don't know. Giving them a role as system defense fleets could be a good idea, especially if they aren't allowed FTL drives, but I really can't see a reason to be limiting them like that. Sure, their use late-game is limited (tell that to people defeating Ortgay with a platoon of DE minelayers), but early-game they are a cheap and cheerful method of scouting out the map and probing for encounters without risking the expensive ships.

EXACTLY what I am fearing pal. I fear destroyers are now how they call drones. In fact, they have said there will be "destroyer-carrier ships"

No, not quite "drones" per se, like I said, they'll probably be like the Tarka Battle Riders - the Hunter-F, and Hunter-A STL cruisers, carried into battle by dreadnaughts. The primary difference from drones is an ungodly amount of firepower (well compared to a typical DN drone loadout anyway), and the fact that they can't be replaced by simple repair ships - they'll need crew.

By the way, a justification that would be fine by me would include renaming the destroyers "frigates", because seriously, that's what they are - "destroyers" already sounds like a capital ship, and capital ships don't need rides into battle. Also, they wouldn't be "carried" as much as they'd "take a ride" - say, a frigate or two can dock with any non-specialized CR+ ship, and travel with its FTL capability. Specialized ships would carry double or triple the amount a non-specialized ship can take along. It'd be fine by me because that's the way it's been all the way since Homeworld - frigates are sub-capital "big ships", incapable of FTL travel by themselves, but happily utilizing the supercapitals' ability to hyperspace.

[Rakonas]

By the way, a justification that would be fine by me would include renaming the destroyers "frigates", because seriously, that's what they are - "destroyers" already sounds like a capital ship, and capital ships don't need rides into battle.

Eh, I disagree. Destroyer doesn't sound at all like a capital ship to me, the game has a kind of WW1/2 ship range. Destroyers are pretty weak scout ships that rarely operate detached from the main fleet, cruisers are built for ship-ship combat, and Dreadnoughts are hulks of war.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Let's see... Oh great Wiki, lend me your wisdom!

In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers.
...
At the dawn of the 21st Century, destroyers are the heaviest surface combatant ships in general use... ...are equivalent in tonnage but vastly superior in firepower to cruisers of the World War II era, capable of carrying nuclear missiles.

Modern frigates are related to earlier frigates only by name. The term "frigate" was readopted during World War II by the Royal Navy to describe a new type of anti-submarine escort vessel that was larger than a corvette, but smaller than a destroyer. The frigate was introduced to remedy some of the shortcomings inherent in the corvette design: limited armament, a hull form not suited to open-ocean work, a single shaft which limited speed and maneuverability, and a lack of range.
...
The frigate possessed less offensive firepower and speed than a destroyer, but such qualities were not required for anti-submarine warfare. Submarines were slow, and ASDIC sets did not operate effectively at speeds of over 20 knots. Rather, the frigate was an austere and weatherly vessel suitable for mass-construction and fitted with the latest innovations in anti-submarine warfare. As the frigate was intended purely for convoy duties, and not to deploy with the fleet, it had limited range and speed.

So, I guess "corvette" would be a proper term for system defence ships, but frigates are definetly a step below destroyers, and destroyers are definetly combat capable enough to be called "capital", designed to defend the larger, super-capital ships like battleships and carriers from smaller, faster attackers.

[forsaken1111]

Let's all argue semantics for a game we're not producing shall we? 

[Sean Mirrsen]

Heh. While we're on pointless arguments, has anyone noticed how supposedly nuclear missiles launched from planets fail to severely damage, let alone vaporize, a 30m destroyer in one hit?

[forsaken1111]

Heh. While we're on pointless arguments, has anyone noticed how supposedly nuclear missiles launched from planets fail to severely damage, let alone vaporize, a 30m destroyer in one hit?

I could point out that a fission detonation in space is much less deadly or destructive as there is no air to transmit a shockwave, so you would really just have thermal shock and radiation (and maybe shrapnel, in the form of vaporized metal abrading the hull) so much less energy would be transferred to the ship.

But that would sound boring.

Space nuke should go boom and kill shit.



Aside: Those same missiles do an incredibly amount of damage if used to bombard the planet though. You will strip the hazard rating of a world very quickly if you use missiles on them.

[Krelian]

Im not a scientist, but I always wondered how a nuclear detonation was supossed to damage a ship, if there is nothing but the vaccum of space, so nothing for the shockwave to travel throught. Only the heat would be reaching the ship, as and I understand, it is the shockwave the really damaging part of a nuclear weapon.

edit: lol beaten, at least im not alone in the theory

[Sean Mirrsen]

Yes, but even if you don't get the miles-wide destruction radius of the nuke in space, the explosions we see these things produce ingame are at most ten meters in diameter! We're still talking terajoules of energy being released for even a kiloton warhead, so I guess I'd expect the effects of a direct hit being... far more spectacular. And then you get shaped nuclear warheads, which specifically funnel the blast energy into the target, which still doesn't result in its vaporization. What the hell are these ships made of? And if the stuff's that tough, how the hell do glorified cannonballs damage it?

[Sean Mirrsen]

Heh... speaking of glorified cannonballs... does anyone else use Thumpers? They're basically Burster rounds, except instead of a rain of Gauss particles they send out a blast of force. The most memorable moment involving one would probably be during one of my skirmishes against a Human fleet (in my last Morrigi game).
 I've outfitted my primary battlecruisers with quad meson beams (Battle Bridge + War), and the rear Large turret was too limited to see serious use in combat, so I put a Thumper there, partly just to see how it works. Soon, I got to see. One rare battle where the human fleet was actually tearing up my own had a moment where the crew of one of their cruisers were probably out of commission for a moment, due to spontaneously losing their lunches and/or getting plastered against the bulkheads.
 What happened was said cruiser trying to come in to attack one of my (last) ships from above. Prior to getting shot up by others of its kin, my ship happily punted a Thumper round at it. The round exploded at something of a critical point, just after the midsection, right in the slight thinning where the engine section connects. The result has... to be described in RPM. The human cruiser was violently hurled backward and upward, spinning like a throwing knife. It wasn't actually moving fast, but it was stopped and thrown back from a full-speed dive, with its heavier engine section getting most of the momentum.
 Sadly, the crew never got to recover from this because another of my ships finished them off, but I'd imagine it was one of the more unpleasant pre-death experiences.

Do you have any memorable SotS moments?

[Orb]

Well......killing a ship's engines and knocking it into orbit is pretty fun. At least till it crashes at the planet's south pole.

[Shadowlord]

Yes, but even if you don't get the miles-wide destruction radius of the nuke in space, the explosions we see these things produce ingame are at most ten meters in diameter! We're still talking terajoules of energy being released for even a kiloton warhead, so I guess I'd expect the effects of a direct hit being... far more spectacular. And then you get shaped nuclear warheads, which specifically funnel the blast energy into the target, which still doesn't result in its vaporization. What the hell are these ships made of? And if the stuff's that tough, how the hell do glorified cannonballs damage it?

You just need moar dakka. Use DF racks.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

Do you have any memorable SotS moments?

First time using the super heavy mass drivers to pummel a Hiver DN and watch it spin wildly out of control before exploding due to subsequent shots.

[Rakonas]

Let's see... Oh great Wiki, lend me your wisdom!

In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers.
...
At the dawn of the 21st Century, destroyers are the heaviest surface combatant ships in general use... ...are equivalent in tonnage but vastly superior in firepower to cruisers of the World War II era, capable of carrying nuclear missiles.

Modern frigates are related to earlier frigates only by name. The term "frigate" was readopted during World War II by the Royal Navy to describe a new type of anti-submarine escort vessel that was larger than a corvette, but smaller than a destroyer. The frigate was introduced to remedy some of the shortcomings inherent in the corvette design: limited armament, a hull form not suited to open-ocean work, a single shaft which limited speed and maneuverability, and a lack of range.
...
The frigate possessed less offensive firepower and speed than a destroyer, but such qualities were not required for anti-submarine warfare. Submarines were slow, and ASDIC sets did not operate effectively at speeds of over 20 knots. Rather, the frigate was an austere and weatherly vessel suitable for mass-construction and fitted with the latest innovations in anti-submarine warfare. As the frigate was intended purely for convoy duties, and not to deploy with the fleet, it had limited range and speed.

So, I guess "corvette" would be a proper term for system defence ships, but frigates are definetly a step below destroyers, and destroyers are definetly combat capable enough to be called "capital", designed to defend the larger, super-capital ships like battleships and carriers from smaller, faster attackers.

SotS is more of an early 20th century flavor, hence usage of the term Dreadnought. Destroyers are far from capital ships.