| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Karsten
   |
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:36:00 -
[1]
Why should most people use anything less then the biggest stick around for fighting?
Execptions: special purpose ships like krestals, caracals and blackbirds. And these are something like the "biggest stick" in special capabilities or cost effetivity.
No one will voluntier to face a assault rifle armed guy with a old musket
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:42:00 -
[2]
yes and what part of the army has the highest loss rate?
armies use infantry also because they are cheap to maintain and fast to get.
as soon as a state has money it will upgrade this foot guys to special trained guys, motorised, airmobile or mechanised infantry.
Only the poorest states use pure plain leg infantry and these poor guys will not survive long on a battlefield.
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:43:00 -
[3]
you are right combined arms is missing here but on a more personally centered game thats hard to achive.
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:48:00 -
[4]
i do not say this.
speical purpose ships have thier place. btu its the nature of things that people want the biggest newest best stuff.
its natural. you can force them to use other stuff only by making the "other stuff" de facto the best stuff around.
then you end up with something named battleship and the real battleships
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:53:00 -
[5]
yes but a today frigate is larger then a WW2 destroyer and nearly a light crusier in size in most cases.
give a amiral unlimited resource and you end up with the big stuff. Example Norfork class anti submarine cruiser of the USA navy build at teh end of WW2 and to late to join the fightin.
what limits stuff is economics and the need to cover wide areas of course to show the flag in peace or to protect stuff at war.
econmics is a factor here to.
But as a role play games any player would prefere a battle ship to a frigatte in a show of flag mission.
Btw i use my frigates and cruiser for special jobs but i enjoy flying my real big toy. call it childish but thats the way it is.
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:59:00 -
[6]
 Quote:
(naval battleships are more or less obsolete).
the soviet kirow class ships could be called battle crusier but not even the US Navy could afford such a ship and carriers. so they made a choise for carriers and refitting some half a century old battleships. the reason the USN canceled the planned strike crusier (modern battleship/battle crusier equivalent) was money and not lack of interest. They had allready assigned hull numbers to them. The gap in the numbering sequence of crusiers. money rules the world.
here you can concentrate your resources so players go for quality instead of quantity
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:02:00 -
[7]
every one able to get a battle ship could afford several crusiers but he can only ONE ship at a time. so why stay in less then what seems best for a certain task. in many cases this is a battleship.
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:09:00 -
[8]
Carriers is another example for this in real live.
Earlier you got light, escort and fleet carriers. Now every navy uses the biggest carrier it can get.
Take the fate of the suggest Sea Control ship (basicly a escort carrier) in the 70s and earily 80s. it was killed in order to have more of the big sticks (nimitz class).
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:20:00 -
[9]
Quote:
I think its stupid balancing when I kill a cruiser before I can activate my 6Šth turret at 60km range.
Cruisers should be upped in HP.
Or lower battleship weapons - this would archive the same.
Anyway this will lead only to a endless circle of lowering/highering values of arms/ships/classes.
What you want is to make battleships less powerful or convert them to level 4/5 crusiers in the end. next step is to complain why a moa can kill a osprey fast. Or why a cruiser can kill a frigate so fast.
As long as you have different sizes the bigger side has more punch. The only realy balance would be that we all sit in the same "default" ship. Somehow i dont think this would be a lot of fun.
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:31:00 -
[10]
he is right about the net effect.
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 16:35:00 -
[11]
Quote:
using the old analogy, a WWII Battleship never shot down a Jap zero with its main guns.
not really accurate
standard anti torpedo bomber drill: fire the big guns in front of the incoming low level planes in the sea. the resulting waterfront had some effect on the attackers.
even todays guided ammo is able to hit nimble targets with big guns (i.e. copper head guided artillery rounds - 80s technology).
and eve ships are not fast. speeds are very low in fact. less then mach 2 in most cases.
no ship here is "fast" even in our current time.
no to mention things like proxy fuses (WW2 technology) and terminal guided ammo (80s technology).
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
| |
|