Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion

[Patroklos]

Well then please explain why evey navy since the beginning of time up too now has all range of combatants. Obviously this is sea versus space, but similarities are plenty. Remember what I said, I battlecruiser with modern weapons, versus a Galactica with obviously less than up to date weaponry (hence decommissioning). And As far as our fighting roles, you need smaller ships for decoys, screening, tactical manuever and other things. And in real life ship cost is exponential, that is as tonage goes up cost rises exponentially. So several smaller ships would be cheaper, and together probobly have more firepower. Let alone the fact that one large ship can only be in one place at one time.

Then of course the question of the navel nomenclature in their universe comes up. What is a Battlestar? Is it an uber battleship, a heavy carrier, or an assault carrier? I say the battlestar is an assault carrier, ie a vessel that mixes carrier function with main battery weaponry. Jack of all trades, master of none. It must take large amounts of space and support operate fighters, and that obviously detracts from ship to ship fighting characteristics.

I do not agree with you SEIV ship construction strategy. Once again, I can build enough battlecruisers to have the same number of weapons as your fewer Dreadnoughts. The diferance is while you are chasing half my fleet my other half has the option of bypassing you and devestating your colonies. The rule isn't to have the most, it is to BE THERE with the most. Besides, your analogy assumes my battlecruisers don't have dedicated carriers that would be much more efficient at the carrier funtion and the ad hoc Galactica. I might even have a PDC dedicated ship (I usually do) to swat your fighters out of the sky on mass. And since we are talking about Battlestars versus smaller craft, all your dreadnaughts would be filled halfway with hanger bays.

On an offshoot, a Battlestar carrying only two squadrons is an extreme waste of space. Each of its side slung hanger bays are the size of a Nimitz carrier, and their fighters are half the size of our aircraft. They could probobly hold hundreds of Vipers.

-Pat

[Loser]

As long as a SE IV design doctrine tangent as started, I feel obligated to point out that the larger mounts available for Battleships and Dreadnaughts are very, very potent.

Personally, I usually skip the Dread and jump straight from Battleship to Baseship, but that could be a flaw in my methods.

[Starhawk]

Originally posted by Patroklos:
Well then please explain why evey navy since the beginning of time up too now has all range of combatants. Obviously this is sea versus space, but similarities are plenty. Remember what I said, I battlecruiser with modern weapons, versus a Galactica with obviously less than up to date weaponry (hence decommissioning). And As far as our fighting roles, you need smaller ships for decoys, screening, tactical manuever and other things. And in real life ship cost is exponential, that is as tonage goes up cost rises exponentially. So several smaller ships would be cheaper, and together probobly have more firepower. Let alone the fact that one large ship can only be in one place at one time.

Then of course the question of the navel nomenclature in their universe comes up. What is a Battlestar? Is it an uber battleship, a heavy carrier, or an assault carrier? I say the battlestar is an assault carrier, ie a vessel that mixes carrier function with main battery weaponry. Jack of all trades, master of none. It must take large amounts of space and support operate fighters, and that obviously detracts from ship to ship fighting characteristics.

I do not agree with you SEIV ship construction strategy. Once again, I can build enough battlecruisers to have the same number of weapons as your fewer Dreadnoughts. The diferance is while you are chasing half my fleet my other half has the option of bypassing you and devestating your colonies. The rule isn't to have the most, it is to BE THERE with the most. Besides, your analogy assumes my battlecruisers don't have dedicated carriers that would be much more efficient at the carrier funtion and the ad hoc Galactica. I might even have a PDC dedicated ship (I usually do) to swat your fighters out of the sky on mass. And since we are talking about Battlestars versus smaller craft, all your dreadnaughts would be filled halfway with hanger bays.

On an offshoot, a Battlestar carrying only two squadrons is an extreme waste of space. Each of its side slung hanger bays are the size of a Nimitz carrier, and their fighters are half the size of our aircraft. They could probobly hold hundreds of Vipers.

-Pat

Well okay your right if the Galactica Class warship has only 2 squadrons of 20 Vipers it would be a waste I'm just telling you what I saw on the new BG web site. And assuming she has other craft such as shuttles and disaster releif ships they would take up some of those launch bays space which is maybe why there are only 2 squadrons.
The "Last Galactica" squadron consisted of only 20 Mark 7 Vipers and 1 Raptor class Recon ship so maybe that is what they based their two squadron analogy on.

And I was using the reference to a MODERN battlestar vs a MODERN battlecruiser the BC would be blown apart as the Battlestar obviously has highly resilliant armor and weapons systems.

Now as to your reference to wet navies having many ranges of combatant you are somewhat correct. However if you look back throughout history ships such as 18th century Sloops and Frigates were NOT front line warships, they were raiders and light combatants and in fleet actions they MAY have been messenger ships. The only TRUE front line world changing warship of the day was the Ship of the Line which was slow and unwealdy thus it required frigates to be recon ships, however if you put a frigate vs a SOL the SoL would blow the frigate apart in one broadside.
Modern Navies have only two real surface combatants that are used regularly Destroyers for primary assault and Frigates for Patrol and interdiction missions. Cruisers never leave the protection of a Carrier battlegroup and their main role is to protect the carrier because it has no guns of it's own while the destroyer acts as a Picket ship for the battlegroup and the frigate acts as a close in defense ship.

Now the Battlestar has advanced sensors so it really doesn't need a picket ship, it has FTL communications which means it doesn't need a messenger sloop. It has it's own close in point defense guns which removes the frigates, it has heavy missile tubes which we have yet to see in action which takes over the role of a cruiser and destroyer, she has rail cannons which are obviously designed for powerful impact weapons which takes the role of a cruiser or battleship and she has her own fighter compliment which removes the need for a dedicated carrier ship.
Okay and as to your reference of BEING there, with an FTL jump drive the Galactica or any battlestar could BE THERE instantly.


Now to your reference of the SEIV you could get your battlecruisers and go around my fleet...hardly as I blockade all warp points into my space with a powerful fleet (when the 100 turns lets me) and a friend of mine places 4 space bases ranging from battlestation to starbase around every warp point that leads to his systems, now these have MASSIVE mounts while your cruiser can only have a HEAVY so if I throw a few dreadnoughts to bulster a defense like that your BCs are dead.

And a Dreadnought can carry more weapons and can carry MASSIVE weapons as apposed to your heavy which naturally gives my dreadnought more firepower, I usually build my ships to be heavy on the defense which means my dreads could have more armor and shields then your BC and still have the same number of guns so if I had six dreadnoughts against your 12 or MORE battlecruisers I'd win in a streight fight.
I too bulster my fleet with Point Defense ships and in the full game I garantee I will bolster them with carriers and SOME dreadnoughts fitted with fighter bays to swat your fighters out of my way while I bring my big guns to bear and turn your BCs into molten slag.

Also if my colonies are heavily defended your BCs might not have the strength to beat the colony before a reinforcement force can arrive so while my dreadnoughts are engaging and destroying the other half of your fleet your remaining half might find it's self cut off in enemy space. And your assuming there wouldn't be mines and weapons platforms around my worlds to prevent just such a tactic as you describe.

And another thing....your neglecting that I could more easily devestate your colonies as if I engage that half of your fleet it's gonna die easy.
Then when my dreadnoughts meet your colonies they'd have an easier time with your defenses then your battlecruisers would have with mine simply do to the sheer firepower bonuses. And since i use a more battlegroup style arrangement for my fleets instead of simply bulking my whole fleet together I'd send half my fleet to pursue each HALF of your fleet, and my fleets would win most likely.

P.S. When I say I have a battlegroup arrangment usually what I mean is that I have a "main fleet" or two depending on the circumstances and resources available and several fast reactionary forces deployed throughout my space.
So if your BCs met up with a few of my reaction forces you may win through sheer numbers but you'd take losses before you even reach my colonies, and that would be after whatever defenses you face at the warp points that come between your "avoiding" my fleet and my space.

[ December 12, 2003, 14:29: Message edited by: Starhawk ]

[Nodachi]

About the only two fighter squadrons per ship issue, I'd like to point out that this was during peacetime. I think it quite likely that if the colonies were on a full war footing then each ship would carry more fighters. Given the fact that it was peacetime with no enemy in sight, the colonies were maintaining a huge fleet considering that there were only 12 worlds to protect.

As to how to classify what kind of ship the Galactica is, that's easy, it's a Battlestar. You can't really classify it by our military standards. Support ships? The show seems to imply that it doesn't need any and I'm willing to go with that. The ship is huge and we've only seen a few locations on board.

Finally, tactics. Why aren't they using more smaller ships? I think this probably comes down to one thing, money. FTL engines must be quite expensive or else most ships would have them. Look at how many ships were left behind by Colonial One. A warship would almost have to have them in order to be effective in that kind of theater of operations. This would lead back to building giant ships and using a different tactical doctrine than what we're used to.

[Loser]

Minor note, Starhawk. Cruisers and Battle Cruisers in stock SE IV use the Large Mount. Battleships and Dreadnaughts use the Heavy Mount. And among ships only Baseships use the Massive Mount

[Starhawk]

Wooops thanks Loser I guess I got a Mod of some type confused with the stock game.

"About the only two fighter squadrons per ship issue, I'd like to point out that this was during peacetime. I think it quite likely that if the colonies were on a full war footing then each ship would carry more fighters. Given the fact that it was peacetime with no enemy in sight, the colonies were maintaining a huge fleet considering that there were only 12 worlds to protect."

That does make sense, afterall why station over a hundred fighters per ship when you have 120 ships of that size.
And the funny thing to me is that the colonies had something like 20 billion people on em yet their military manpower would only be in the few hundred thousand not even the millions. Well at least their fleet.

"As to how to classify what kind of ship the Galactica is, that's easy, it's a Battlestar. You can't really classify it by our military standards. Support ships? The show seems to imply that it doesn't need any and I'm willing to go with that. The ship is huge and we've only seen a few locations on board."

Actually it would be a battleship by United States standards because of it's ship killing firepower. The fact that it has launch bays would only make sense in a space based theatre of combat because in space a fighter could go above you beneath you beside you that sort of thing and unless you want to add too many guns and use up all your ammo in only a few volleys you'd much rather have fighters available to cover your "weak" points.

"Finally, tactics. Why aren't they using more smaller ships? I think this probably comes down to one thing, money. FTL engines must be quite expensive or else most ships would have them. Look at how many ships were left behind by Colonial One. A warship would almost have to have them in order to be effective in that kind of theater of operations. This would lead back to building giant ships and using a different tactical doctrine than what we're used to."

Another good point, the battlestar appears to have enough provisions and supply to Last for a great deal of time on it's own and this makes sense considering it is a starship of enormious size and you really don't want to have to bring it into port on a regular basis.

And you have a really good point about the FTL drive, they seem to be a rare thing among ships and considering the Galactica hadn't made a jump in over twenty years prior to the new Cylon attack it leads me to beleive that there are some kinds of regulations or cost prohibiting effects of using the FTL drive on a regular basis, especially for warships.

[Patroklos]

AND you will have world ships, AND you will have etc. ect.

If you have concentrated your fleet for an attack, then you won't be there to defend your warp points. And if you have a huge fleet of Dreadnaughts you won't have starbases to go everywhere (assuming you do not own half the map, which is not normally the case and thus maintenance will get you). In a normal game you can't have everything. And who said I wouldn't have Dreadnaughts, I just said I would complement them with a range of vessels. The dabate is about Battlestars, with a SEIV comparision. If that is the case then as in the show, you would only have ONE clase of ship that you use for everything a la Batlestar Galactica. That means no starbases, carriers, PDC ships, minesweepers, etc. and half your dereadnaughts would be filled with fighter bays.

Your fleet would be powerful in one field, but lack capabilities to accomplish other missions. Example, who pillage collonies better, one dreadnaught of three BCs? Which force would be easier to track down and destroy? And of cource you DNs will be slow as compared to my cruisers. It all comes down to playing style really, and I bet both srategies will work.

-Pat