View Thread
 Grey Wolves
|
|
| Dramicus |
Posted on 20-09-2005 23:07
|
 Posts: 15 Joined: September 17 2005 |
I would like to propose an idea for a new ship type based upon the U-boats of ww2. Now, the reason that I selected ww2 era ships is due to the slightly different role which they played as opposed to what submarines have become in modern times. U-boats were essentially what their names indicated "Unterseeboots" (under sea boats) and were not entirely true submarines as the definition would describe. Modern submarines spend nearly all of their time submerged and utilize no other weaponry other than torpedoes and missiles. Uboats spent the majority of their time on the surface and only submerged in order to attack warships, otherwise they would remain surfaced and engage with deck and flack guns. This type of role fits much better within the homeworld game engine. (for discussion's sake I will refer to the new ship class as wolf) The proposed Wolf class, strategic strike (SS, which just happens to be the official naval designation) vessel would preform as follows: A target location would be decided upon and the ship would then proceed to the area as normal. Upon reaching the designated location it would either be ordered to engage a specific target or patrol. If a target is found the ship will "submerge" by activating a cloaking device, it will then approach until within range and unleash a salvo of up to four torpedoes (for game balance) at the target. these "fish" will be launched from the front of the ship and will travel at a very high speed to simulate the effect of surprise and minimize the chance of being dodged or intercepted. if its possible to cloak the torps as well then that would be all the better. If the entire salvo hits, the target vessel should be either destroyed or at the very least, severely damaged. The torpedoes should require an extended reload time to avoid torp-spamming. depending on the limitations within homeworld, the ship could either remain cloaked after the attack or uncloak just prior. (remaining cloaked would be much better and allow the ship to operate independently far within enemy territory. The ship would also be armed with one "deck gun" of significant calibre but it should only be used as last resort or in "low risk" situations (explained later) in addition to the gun, it should also be armed with several anti-strike craft pds weapons (staying true to the u-boot theme) which would allow the ship to hold its own against small numbers of strike craft, however becoming vulnerable to determined attacks. Apart from playing an anti-capital ship role, the Wolf class vessel should also be very effective at "convoy raiding", attacking enemy resource outposts and destroying the "cargo ships" or resource craft. Thus forcing the enemy to divert forces to protect their supply routs (convoy escorts) This is where the deck gun will come into play and the anti-strike craft weapons, as the only real response to an initial attack would be strike craft, anything larger being too slow to respond and must be stationed at the resource site in order to be effective. Apart from the torps, the Wolf class vessel would be highly outclassed by other capital vessels and perhaps even some frigates and would require tactical support in these situations, thus making the Wolf best suited for strategic strikes. These could include anything from destroying or crippling a capital ship just prior to an attack, resource disruption, providing anti-capital support during fleet combat, or simply performing a hunter-killer role: destroying lone capital ships caught without support. The Wolf should have an increased sensor range to simulate its ability to hide from enemies before being spotted and its ability to perform limited recon for Fleet Command while in enemy territory. It should also be faster than most frigates and capital ships, in order to allow it to run away if detected. Armor should be moderate to make it resistant to strike craft but not so high that it would pose a serious problem to larger ships in all out combat. It should be somewhere inbetween a capital ship and a frigate in size and should cost a moderate amount of resources but be highly limited in number. The above description is intended for the Hiigaran Navy. The Wolf should also be availible to the sobani forces but in much greater numbers to reflect their need and use for such stealthy craft. A Vagyr SS craft would be similar but much slower, with more armor and an increased number of deck guns/flak. to compensate, increased cost and an even further increased reload time for torps would be appropriate. I know that there is no way that this could make it into the current update and possibly even the next one. However, if its decided by Tel that this might be a good addition to the PDS universe I would be perfectly willing to do all the voice acting for the craft and write any documentation and/or backstory for it. Sadly, I am unable to do any coding or modeling as I dont have any experience in those sectors. I would gladly do any amount of play-testing and balance work to ensure that the ship fits nicely within the modification. summary: Ship designation: Wolf Class Strategic Strike vessel Operational role: Taskforce support/Hunter-Killer/Convoy Raider Main armaments: Torpedo salvo, Four (4) Secondary armaments: 1 deck cannon (undetermined type), moderate amount of anti-strike craft systems Special abilities: Cloaking field, improved sensors Speed: High Armor: Medium Cost: Medium Availability: Very Low if anyone has any suggestions or additions, feel free. Edited by Dramicus on 20-09-2005 23:11 "The warrior who acts out of honour cannot fail. His duty is honour itself. Even his death - if it is honourable - is a reward and can be no failure, for it has come through duty. Seek honour as you act, therefore, and you will know no fear." - Robute Gui
|
|
|
|
| Cobalt Shiva |
Posted on 20-09-2005 23:49
|
 Posts: 118 Joined: September 07 2005 |
Problem: how can we justify four powerful torpedoes capable of 'crippling or destroying' a ship in a single salvo being mounted on this chassis? Why not mount them on strike craft and on capital ships as well? "This is tactical control..."
|
|
|
|
| Warman1 |
Posted on 20-09-2005 23:53
|
 Posts: 146 Joined: September 08 2005 |
You could just say that the launchers are a special type and that they require rare parts that are not easily made, you could also say something similar of the torpedoes which would exlain why they are not mass produced. |
|
|
|
| Cobalt Shiva |
Posted on 20-09-2005 23:58
|
|
Posts: 118 Joined: September 07 2005 |
Problem: how can we justify four powerful torpedoes capable of 'crippling or destroying' a ship in a single salvo being mounted on this chassis? Why not mount them on strike craft and on capital ships as well? "This is tactical control..."
|
|
|
|
| Dramicus |
Posted on 21-09-2005 00:18
|
|
Posts: 15 Joined: September 17 2005 |
in addition to what warman said, you could argue that the torps are also very large and require alot of storage space, hence the lack of any other major weapon systems EDIT: Although, it should be noted that torpedoes were mounted on U-boots as well as surface ships during ww2, however the surface ships utilzed an externally mounted free turning deployment system while the subs were limited to forward and rearward firing arcs. It should also be noted that torpedo kills from surface ships were very rear as warships almost never got close enough to eachother in order to deploy torpedos. As opposed to subs which closed to distances as close as 350 m and less (though they were perfectly able to sink ships at distances of 1-7 km Edited by Dramicus on 21-09-2005 00:28 "The warrior who acts out of honour cannot fail. His duty is honour itself. Even his death - if it is honourable - is a reward and can be no failure, for it has come through duty. Seek honour as you act, therefore, and you will know no fear." - Robute Gui
|
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 21-09-2005 00:49
|
 Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
There's one problem here - you don't have anything to "submerge" into. As such the concept of stealth aircraft and stealth surface ships, with reference to made to the characteristics conventional air and surface platforms, are much more viable here. Submarines have been discussed many times over - they don't work if you port the concept over without looking at the different operating environment. As such - we already have them. An assault sloop/battle corvette wing under cover of heavy jamming support may pop up suddenly on a flank, you also have your guided weapons ships, and don't mention the special operations carriers and auxiliary deep space escorts which have some measure of active stealth capability. Now, are they effective as your concept? Never. Give me a 2CL 2CVA taskgroup with full strike fighter complement (or 1 BV, 20 CtB, 3 FA if Vagyr) and we'll talk about effective surgical strikes. So don't self-justify on something that blatently resembles a low-observable Hydra FFG. You could simply sum up the concept in one single sentence like this. As such, this is an unacceptable proposal as to get a stealth attack fighter into this operating environment you don't just copy and paste a F-117 here. "Surfacing" at point blank range next to a capital warship won't give you the element of surprise - you get murdered by automated defenses and what little missiles you can launch from a say, frigate sized platform shot away by CIWS. Edited by TelQuessir on 21-09-2005 00:53 |
|
|
|
| Dramicus |
Posted on 21-09-2005 00:57
|
|
Posts: 15 Joined: September 17 2005 |
The same thing could be said about current subs, sure a battle carrier with a full complement of aircraft and escort ships would be more capable of doing more damage than a single sub, as would a taskforce of cruisers, but thats just it. you are talking about having a mini fleet as opposed to a single craft. it would be much more cost-effective to utilize a single ship to take out or severely damage an enemy CV than to deploy an entire task force to smash through its defences, escort craft and fighters inorder to destroy it. The sub concept allows an intelligent person to manouver the craft and make the strike against the capital vessel and THEN move in with the carrier, cruisers, escorts, and strike craft. EDIT: the idea is that if you want to destroy a target that would otherwise require an entire task force to even get at, let alone destroy. Sending in one ship with sufficient munitions to destroy the target, infiltrate, strike and exfiltrate without wasting what could othewise mean hundreds of lives take the battle of midway for example and the carrier battles then take the battles in the atlantic into account, several CVs and BBs not to mention all types of frigates, destroyers and cruisers were sunk by lone U-boots, unsupported by aircraft, surface ships or fleets. Edited by Dramicus on 21-09-2005 01:04 "The warrior who acts out of honour cannot fail. His duty is honour itself. Even his death - if it is honourable - is a reward and can be no failure, for it has come through duty. Seek honour as you act, therefore, and you will know no fear." - Robute Gui
|
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 21-09-2005 01:05
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
We can go somewhere with this discussion. It just requires you to quit defending your blatently unworkable concept. Your choice. You will simply need to shut up and look at the vastly different operating environment you are now in. |
|
|
|
| Dramicus |
Posted on 21-09-2005 01:10
|
|
Posts: 15 Joined: September 17 2005 |
then please explain to me how it is blatently unworkable instead of simply stating that as a fact without bothering to back it up. vastly different operating environment? the only problem that I could see would be the "submerging" part, however that is already covered with cloaking systems which are already in place. the idea between submerging is the enemy cant see you, therefore cant strike back. Cloaking achieves this objective. "The warrior who acts out of honour cannot fail. His duty is honour itself. Even his death - if it is honourable - is a reward and can be no failure, for it has come through duty. Seek honour as you act, therefore, and you will know no fear." - Robute Gui
|
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 21-09-2005 01:39
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Oh sure I would - but if you're going to go "I'm right! I'm right! This can work!" I'm not going to spare ANY expense of my time for you. And, I told you to shut up. Do so and I'll outline the formal workings of stealth technology, and its utility in tactical situations for the benefit of everyone. |
|
|
|
| Dramicus |
Posted on 21-09-2005 02:02
|
|
Posts: 15 Joined: September 17 2005 |
I dont think stating facts and approaching a problem from a logical perspective is jumping up and down while yelling that im right, but who am I to make such a claim. Fine, Ill "shut up" as you put it, so you can bless me and everyone else with your view on stealth tech. Far be it from me to expect a normal and friendly argument from someone who goes out of their way to make each and every reply a direct insult where none was deserved or required. instead of trying to belittle me, you could have just saved both of us the "expense of time" by opening with the logical and reasonable explanation that you only seem to be willing to impart if I bow to you and stop acting like a childish fool by trying to argue a point. there was no need to feel insulted by my proposal. I was not jumping up and down like a child while demanding you to implement it. I was not criticizing you. I was not in any way attempting to insult you. yet for some reason you attack me, making statements like: "So don't self-justify on something that blatently resembles a low-observable Hydra FFG" - it doesnt blatently resemble a low-observable Hydra FFG, it blatently resembles a bloody submarine. "We can go somewhere with this discussion. It just requires you to quit defending your blatently unworkable concept. Your choice. You will simply need to shut up and look at the vastly different operating environment you are now in." - we can go somewhere by having me shut up and listen to your obviously superior knowledge which apparently requires no explaination? and demanding that I shut up? really, I thought that perhaps we might be above such base insults. "Oh sure I would - but if you're going to go "I'm right! I'm right! This can work!" I'm not going to spare ANY expense of my time for you. And, I told you to shut up. Do so and I'll outline the formal workings of stealth technology, and its utility in tactical situations for the benefit of everyone." - again with the insults, again with the demanding that I stop trying to offer a thought-out counter to your argument. Again with the needless and certainly undeserved hostility. If I said or implied ANYTHING that warrented your wrath, please point it out as it was most certainly unintentional. but I guess you will only be happy if I "shut up" so I suppose the only logical thing to do in this situation, apart from trying to reason with you in a polite manner, is to submit to your unwavering demands and listen to what you know is right. "The warrior who acts out of honour cannot fail. His duty is honour itself. Even his death - if it is honourable - is a reward and can be no failure, for it has come through duty. Seek honour as you act, therefore, and you will know no fear." - Robute Gui
|
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 21-09-2005 02:12
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Correct. An entire team has gone through this exact subject, and you are entitled to comment on just why we haven't published the finalised information - that's one of my tasks for the post-v7 arena. We don't need a debate on what is in practical reality, a flawed notion. Look at this analogy - you are going to have a surface ship sail into the perimeter of an enemy surface action group, move into position to fire a crippling salvo at a say, Kirov class battlecruiser, then slip out undetected. That's what you're trying to accomplish in space warfare. You need something from the Philadelphia Experiment to pull that off, and we have the tools to do that - however those tools are not well proliferated on warships because of their requirements and impact on ship survivability. Case closed. |
|
|
|
| Dramicus |
Posted on 21-09-2005 02:27
|
|
Posts: 15 Joined: September 17 2005 |
First things first, what you posted makes total sense and I agree with it and I am not arguing that point. However, if you look at PDS and take a Khagan CV for example. I have noticed on more than one occasion that while under attack, it is able to activate its cloaking system while being at a very close range to enemy vessels and suddenly become impossible to fire at. Perhaps this is how you intended it, perhaps it is simply a problem within the game itself but (not I am not arguing anything, remember I agree with what you stated) if the CV is able to cloak so completely at such a short range, then logic dictates that a sub-class vessle would be able to as well. I am guessing that this is simply something which is hard-coded into HW2 and is out of your control, which is understandable but that is how I got the idea that it might be possible to implement some type of submarine vessel. isnt it alot easier and less stressful if you focus less on trying to insult me and simply reply in a non-hostile manner? "The warrior who acts out of honour cannot fail. His duty is honour itself. Even his death - if it is honourable - is a reward and can be no failure, for it has come through duty. Seek honour as you act, therefore, and you will know no fear." - Robute Gui
|
|
|
|
| Phoenix |
Posted on 21-09-2005 02:42
|
|
Posts: 27 Joined: September 09 2005 |
I've seen some mods with cruise missiles, they are fast, but not like a missile is usualy, they can be destroyed. this ship could launch these cruise missiles while cloaked, these "torpedoes" could be radio guided since space alows for this easily, and sent to thier targets at will of the cloaked ship. a ship with cloaking, and launch facilities would be a rare thing indeed. and production no this ship would be hard if not impossible, with the storage of the torps and the cloaking, which could be a subsystem anyway. then the torps would have to be built at a shipyard where the SS is produced, the SS could have some basic anti fighter/corvette weapon systems, but not much as its primary purpose would be as a delivery system, like sending in a cloaked carrier in to launch fighters behind enemy lines, a tactic best use in conjuncture with other stuff. I would suggest for balance that these torps be powerful, but not much mroe so than a normal one for balance sake, and cheep enough to justify building a bunch, sending in an SS or two to maybe hit a lightly guarded harv op, and then leave without risking the SS itself. I only see 2 probs with this, the suicide unit might not be very pds like, and ppl might be tempted to just use them without the SS, thus unbalancing thier usage, and 2, I'm not sure a cloaked ship can launch fighters. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 21-09-2005 03:07
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Quote isnt it alot easier and less stressful if you focus less on trying to insult me and simply reply in a non-hostile manner? If I have to insult you to get you to stop saying "it will work!", then resolve the issue, I will do it. That said, Phoenix is not adding to the discussion nor do I see any point in continuing on this topic. The Kaghan CV cloaking under AI control is a game engine issue, has been resolved and is not labelled as low observable anywhere. Edited by TelQuessir on 21-09-2005 03:08 |
|
|
|
| DrunkEskimo |
Posted on 21-09-2005 03:31
|
 Posts: 16 Joined: September 09 2005 |
I don't understand why you're so against the concept TelQuessir, all of the points he made were pretty valid from my view. I believe that a cloaking heavy frigate, with a primary armament of four large anti-capital ships torpedos and a minimal amount of secondary armaments could be implemented in the game. Tel, you stated, in response to his concept using stealth technology that: "however those tools are not well proliferated on warships because of their requirements and impact on ship survivability." Dramicus stated that his concept would be: "highly outclassed by other capital vessels and perhaps even some frigates" I read this as: "Not very Survivable" And, if it did "blatently resemble a low-observable Hydra FFG." What's the problem? The PDS Mod is supposed to be a universe that shows two races advancing technology to better kill the enemy. Mebbe BuResearch put their heads together, looked at the FFG, and said, now what if: and then: yeah, that could work, let's build one! And besides, it's just a concept. I don't see any need to get so huffy in the forums about it. Well, people normally put something creative here. Hrm.
|
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum |