maddeath wrote: |
Such huge prominent windows on a battleship? Suicide! |
vila wrote: |
The crew module idea doesn't work for me. What would be its purpose? It would be more relevant to a carrier where it would provide crews for strike craft and/or frigates. There would also have to be some way of getting the crew personnel on and off the ship, so hangar/docking facilities would be needed. That's not what battleships are about. A battleship is about strength and hitting power - nothing more, nothing less. |
vila wrote: |
I've had a few more thoughts. The side-mounted main armament turrets can obviously fire straight ahead, up, down and rearward but seem to have little sideways ability. I'd like to see two more turrets, one above, one below, to give all-round fire capability. Perhaps on that empty front section? The triple sweeper (if that's what it is) could be raised slightly to fire over the top of the forward turret. |
Isul wrote: |
Also, imo, the current juggernaught model would be a great template for a higaran battleship (i'm not very fond of the current suicide role of this ship). |
Isul wrote: |
Also, imo, the current juggernaught model would be a great template for a higaran battleship (i'm not very fond of the current suicide role of this ship). |
vila wrote: | ||
Not sure about that. It's not really big enough. It's more like a fat destroyer. |
Alewx wrote: |
i Think the Model of the Battleship should get a overwork. most here like it but i think it is not really the style of hiigarans. |
Hades wrote: |
I could say that about the Vortex. It just looks like the old style alien type ships from the sci-fi. It doesn't fit as Hiigaran in my opinion. |
Alewx wrote: |
Hades i agree with you the Vortex should get some more length. and better commandbridge. then it would be perfect. |
Spork wrote: |
Well then how would the intergalactic windshield companies make money? I suppose next you'll want to get rid of the extior lights on the fleet as well. |
Moander wrote: |
heh this battleship doesn't fit to the ship building styles hiigarans. And its smaller than Battlecruser, |
vila wrote: | ||
At the risk of upsetting Nerb with another WW1/WW2 comparison, battle cruisers have always been bigger than battleships. They have to be in order to contain the extra propulsion power for their higher speed. |
Moander wrote: |
heh Battleship They were great always from battlecruiser's
WWII? But Bismarck, Tirpitz, Yamato? There were a Battlecruisers? I don't think so;] |
Nakamura wrote: |
I think that the 4 nukes are too much for a ship like the battleship. It would be much batter if there would be a slot for a subsystem like hyperspace module and then you could decrease the number of nukes to 3. |
Simmity wrote: |
Perhaps you're right, and instead those 2 perhaps another kenitic gun on top front? |
kuponutmog wrote: |
Weak nukes?
Weak fucking nukes? You what? Considering that they're a fire and forget weapon that the battleship can spew out more than once, and the fact that 3 of them is enough to take out a vaygr battlecruiser with capital ships hp 3 (or 2, cant remember which), i think they're more than powerful enough as it is |
Beghins wrote: |
OK this is fantastic and it is perfect like Higaran Battleship, do you know the owner/modeller? |
Quote: |
the badge can be inserted but it would require a little remodeling (cutting a square from the hull as a separate object and re texturing it accordingly) but no hardpoint changes whatsoever. |
Quote: |
well, on the MK2 BC I guess you can mount another SCC Turret in front of the bottom one because it has clearance. |
Quote: |
Question about weapon fire animations: Let's say a ship has a torpedo/missile launcher turret. Can the turret be scripted to return to it's idle position after each firing cycle (after every muzzle fired)? Explanation: Turret tracks targets, fires up to x torpedoes, turret stops tracking (even if there still are active targets) and returns to idle position, reload animation, turret starts tracking targets again. |
Quote: |
Torpedo/Missile launcher turrets cannot rotate, they are fixed by the engine, if you set them like "animated turret" the game crashes. |
Quote: |
To NXS: missile launching turrets don't crash for me. I made the VGR 4xAC Destroyer turrets fire missiles (attempt at making smart - a.k.a tracking - AC shells, that also leave trails behind them - and using a missile type projectile is the only way I know how to do it) and it fired them without any errors (though i never got the scripting for the smart AC shells to work properly ) |
Pete J wrote: |
I think support modules have been intentionally left off Battleships so that Battlecruisers, Carriers or any other unit that can build support modules are needed to support them. This means that you don't end up with something that simply dominates (like the Hiigaran Mothership Battle Asset)! |
Fury.UK wrote: |
Do you think there's ever a point where you create too many super capital ships? It looks good but how will it fit in with the other ships? Hiig already have a cruiser and a battleship. What next a Captains Yacht? |
ALC wrote: |
I think it is unrealistic that a Capital ship that costs as much as a Battleship to develop and produce would not have a Hyperspace module (and other modules similar to a battlecruiser"s) capability. |
Fury.UK wrote: |
Do you think there's ever a point where you create too many super capital ships? |
Fury.UK wrote: |
What next a Captains Yacht? |
vila wrote: |
The side-by-side main armament platforms will be a problem. |
vila wrote: |
I think that area should be slightly re-shaped to provide a single, large weapon point. |
Quote: |
I realise that I'm spouting about something I'm virtually ignorant about, and I'm not qualified to discuss it further. |
Quote: |
I just thought the original idea, although it's a quick convenient solution, needed some tweaking to succeed. |
Sithicus wrote: |
I've removed the side bridge couse I've found it annoying. I like my ships generally symetrical. Maybe i'll put something on the dorsal side. As for turrets I was thinking of either sort of 2 "pumped up" normal BC domed turrets or 2 multi-barreled heavy ion turrets, similar to those on MS battle asset.
They'd be able to engage separate targets. Range and power - lets say 30%-50% of MS Heavy Ion Canon but very short time between shots - like in normal BC. |
ALC wrote: |
Turret locations?
This was worked out by naval designers prior to 1918! Look at any warship from destroyer platform upwards. |
Quote: |
even if No 3 will make it as Battleship, there's still place for a Heavy Battlecriuser |
raptor wrote: |
thnx saqyxil,
@ Sithicus, i think gast pulsars would look awesome on this ship |
raptor wrote: |
by the way... where did you get this model? |
M123 wrote: | ||
I found this pic in a post made by the creator of the model, -UNI-, in the Concept Ships thread.. |
Quote: |
The model and design are very very good, I would be glad to insert it into complex. If you want save time, don't insert Hard Points or subsystems, I can do it for myself. The most important thing is to have the model well texturized, with badge and team colours. Also, I need the subsystem base (textures) in the right places. thanks, Beghins. |
Quote: |
I can texture. |
Quote: |
The model and design are very very good, I would be glad to insert it into complex. If you want save time, don't insert Hard Points or subsystems, I can do it for myself. The most important thing is to have the model well texturized, with badge and team colours. Also, I need the subsystem base (textures) in the right places. thanks, Beghins. |
Blackmane wrote: |
maybe...
guys can i have the n1 and n6 models concept? http://complex.mastertopforum.com/10-vt169.html?postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135 in need they for other my projecrs |
maddeath wrote: |
i still dont believe complex is in need of ships this large |
maddeath wrote: |
its hard to tell for me reight now, but comparing the 2 large central bumps with the original BC, id expect they are supposed to carry turrets sadly, both will have only about a 180 degree firing angle, while they will only be able to fire at once when the target is in front or in the back i find this to be a glaring weak point on real ships, this is usually handled by putting the turrests in a row and elevating one of them a slight bit so that the upper turret gets full 360 free degrees and the lower at least 180, which definitely sounds more efficient to me |
vila wrote: |
The side-by-side main armament platforms will be a problem. |
Sithicus wrote: | ||
What do you mean? |
vila wrote: |
The model is a merger of two part-battlecruiser models and the BC main armament platform is duplicated side-by-side. If you try to put two big turrets alongside each other like that you will have problems. |
Sithicus wrote: |
You mean if the 2 central ion cannons wil be to close and will shoot through each other? |
vila wrote: |
Yes, or even collide with each other as they rotate. |
raptor wrote: |
it may be an solution to place the turrets on different hights in the centre
OR put in an 'script'that allows the ship to attack multiple targets with its ion turrets. those turrets then only can turn 180 degrees from front to back. OR you use the place where the current pulsars are for ion turrets... they did the same in PDS and it looks quite awesome. to make it a bit more .... good looking there wil be a different 'turret'on those places needed. |
Sithicus wrote: |
I've got new ideas how to equip this bad boy, inspired by some weapons on Advanced Sentinels. |
ALC wrote: |
Also, I would see the Hig BB as a vessel that would replace the Battle Ark in the game. |
vila wrote: |
Able to transport and repair numerous capital ships and with docking facilities for MS, BCs etc? Surely not! |
hell diguner wrote: |
It appalled me to look at the waste of resources that was the Hiigaran Battlecruiser in vanilla HW2. It had SO much unused hull and space. There weren't even turrets on all that unused surface area. Complex's addition of turrets and side-mounted weapons make me feel slightly better, but it still feels like the Hiigarans built the BC to look mean first, and fight well second. |
Quote: |
. . . it's heavy ion cannons. Which I don't have a problem with being side-by-side. A side-by-side design is not meant for engaging in one singular target, in front, side, bottom or back. It is meant to engage flanking opponents, multiple, lesser opponents. |
Quote: |
Do you think maybe there's a reason the point defenses on the mothership and refinery are placed all around the ship, instead of at the front? |
Quote: |
Why can't that concept be scaled up and applied to larger vessels? |
Quote: |
I don't think the designers of the destroyer meant for it to present it's flank to the target. |
Quote: |
. . . negatively accelerating (decelerating isn't a real word, you accelerate when you speed up, and slow down). |
vila wrote: | ||
You’re missing the significance of the ship’s name. It’s a Battle Cruiser. Cruisers are warships which are intended to stay on station for a very long time – months, or maybe years, even for terrestrial naval ships. They therefore require much more comprehensive living/recreational facilities than warships which are intended to sortie from their base, fight a battle, then return. All those windows along that hull area tell the story. |
vila wrote: | ||
Those cannons are the main armament, which is intended to engage a single target. Multiple/lesser opponents would be engaged by the secondary armament. Besides, HW ships only fire at one target at a time (other than sweepers etc, which seem to operate independently). |
vila wrote: | ||
Yes, because they have to deal with fast-moving attacks from all directions simultaneously. |
vila wrote: | ||
It can, and should be, but not for the main armament. |
vila wrote: | ||
Of course they did! That’s why all its armament is on the centre-line. |
vila wrote: | ||
‘Decelerating’ is a real word: it’s in the Oxford Dictionary. In physics, 'acceleration' doesn’t apply only to speed (or more correctly, given the context, velocity), it also applies to direction, so I think we should stick to 'deceleration' for slowing down. |
vila wrote: |
...warship purpose, design and construction... |
Quote: |
The expression is used all to commonly in the usa. |
Sithicus wrote: |
In general dorsal cannons are Vaygr thing. Higs are into turrets |
Sithicus wrote: |
Well thats oryginal BC texture stretched and patched. Now the real work begins. |
Blackmane wrote: |
great job ... really good...
but I still do not like it.... are only two battlecruiser united...there is nothing innovative... I'm studying in this month, if you give me time,I will see to finish my battleship project track also texure... |
SpootKnight wrote: |
Technically a Battlecruiser is a Battleship stripped of its armor to give it more speed in addition to its firepower, being a bigger Battlecruiser makes sense for this Battleship model. |
vila wrote: |
A battlecruiser isn't a battleship stripped of its armour, it bears no relationship whatsoever to a battleship. It's a very large, very fast cruiser with battleship calibre guns. |
Blackmane wrote: |
great job ... really good...
but I still do not like it.... are only two battlecruiser united...there is nothing innovative... I'm studying in this month, if you give me time,I will see to finish my battleship project track also texure... |
SpootKnight wrote: | ||
"Battlecruisers shared the very large main armament of battleships, and were generally as large and costly as battleships of the same generation. They traded off armour or firepower for higher speed, which was made possible by their powerful engines and slender hulls." You were saying? I see three things that it bears relationship to. |
SpootKnight wrote: |
Well Complex should change the Hiigaran Heavy Bomber then so it's not just a Bomber with extra doodads slapped on it, and by default, the Hiigaran and Vaygr Corvettes use the same hull design several times over to implement their different variants, the Flak Frigate, Marine Frigate, and Field Defense Frigate, as well as the Assault Frigate, Heavy Missile Frigate, and Infiltrator Frigate have very similar designs with several minute changes here and there, (Although the Hiigaran Frigates' changes are slightly more radical in comparison to the Vaygr's). |
vila wrote: |
Its tall hull also couldn't be built in the Hiig SY. |
Quote: |
@Pietrak: Those are nice ships, but it goes down to: 1. will it fit right in the factions 2. How powerfull 3. Balancing issues. 4. Only if Beghins agrees. |
Pete J wrote: |
I like the idea of adding a Hiigaran Battleship. However (and I hate saying this as there's probably no way that I'd come up with a model half as good) I find it a bit too 'flat', especially at the front.
I do like the use of the cool turrets though. Maybe a few more could be added to hide the flat spots? |
Kraizer793 wrote: |
1 vaygr battleship cannot stand a chance (even when upgraded) to a vortex, if you pit them 1v1 in a fight the vortex comes out on top. |
Kraizer793 wrote: |
it has 2 nuclear bombs it launches almost instantaneously after engaging. |
vila wrote: | ||
But the nukes are useless! They detonate instantaneously as they leave the ship. The only thing they damage is their own launching ship. (If they launch at all, that is. Mine only launch on about 25% of the occasions I try to use them.) |
Filippo.zp wrote: |
Yes, nukes detonate instantaneously as they leave the ship sometimes but not so frequently. |
Filippo.zp wrote: |
You should pay attention to 2 factors, imo:
- target's position - vortex's horizontal plane inclination (hope that's correct translation) The problems is that the nuke collides with the ships straight after being lauched. |
vila wrote: |
This is apparently because the ship travels faster than the nuke. The is totally ridiculous because anything fired from a moving vehicle will have that vehicle's velocity in addition its own. |
vila wrote: |
It's all very well saying "pay attention", but in what way?. |
Filippo.zp wrote: |
English is not my first language |
vila wrote: |
I would not have guessed that from your posts in this forum. |
hell diguner wrote: |
ISometimes I wonder if I'm the only one.
|
hell diguner wrote: |
nearly everyone it from Europe... |