The Terrans

AgentZero · #1 January 4th, 2005, 09:59 PM

Neither, actually. The Galaxy of Fire was a BBS that existed before the internet (or at least before the internet in it's present form). The BBS hosted a rudimentary multi-player strategy game along with a forum where players would 'role-play' their empire between the daily turns. Like most BBS's it is now defunct, unfortunately.
But on the upside, I got the Cruiser done! The Vengeance-class Cruiser was the Last of her line, before the radical re-think that resulted in the new design of the heaviest Terran ships.

NarfsCompIsBack · #2 January 4th, 2005, 10:34 PM

Shinyness!

I like the reflection. It's a neat change from, well, all the shipsets I remember.

AgentZero · #3 January 5th, 2005, 07:11 PM

Thanks, Narf. Good to see you back. I've decided to retool the bits at the end that connect the engines to the main hull, coz I just don't like the look of them, then I'll be trying to finish up the warships part of the set over the weekend. Got the Dreadnough sketched out now and it is one nasty looking customer!

Fyron · #4 January 5th, 2005, 07:13 PM

They seem oddly vulnerable from the top and bottom... 2d defensive shields/plates aren't all that helpful in 3d environments.

Atrocities · #5 January 5th, 2005, 07:51 PM

I like em alot. But I the side armor to me is just a tad too tall. Otherwise rock on set.

ZeroAdunn · #6 January 5th, 2005, 10:05 PM

I like it, it has a feel of high tech, mixed with steampunk.

AgentZero · #7 January 6th, 2005, 07:13 PM

Fyron: You're perfectly right, although the smaller Terran ships would be manoeverable enough to keep their armor facing the enemy, and the LC & CR can hide behind said armor while delivering broadsides to the enemy. That said, the Last three in the series will have the armor on the top and bottom, with only a comparatively small gap for weapons to poke out. That way the only really vulnerable bits are the front and rear, but hey, you can't have everything.

AT: Praise from Caesar, I am honoured. Although I would say if someone's going to be flinging depleted uranium and other nasties at me, I want the biggest shield you can give me.

ZeroAdunn: I'm not sure what 'steampunk' is, but I'm gonna take that as a complement. So, thanks!

Suicide Junkie · #8 January 6th, 2005, 07:22 PM

A mere three enemy ships at linearly independent vectors can make the ship vulnerable no matter what orientation it is in.

In any large combat, the plates would be of little use. Just spread out, and pick off the ships you have a clear shot at... if they try to angle towards you, somebody else in your fleet will get a shot.

Phoenix-D · #9 January 6th, 2005, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Suicide Junkie said:
A mere three enemy ships at linearly independent vectors can make the ship vulnerable no matter what orientation it is in.

In any large combat, the plates would be of little use. Just spread out, and pick off the ships you have a clear shot at... if they try to angle towards you, somebody else in your fleet will get a shot.

On the other hand, doing that will also likely put your ships out of mutual support range and make defeat in detail more likely.

Consider a cruiser firing missles at your fleet. Would you rather have those ships close enough to ALL engage the incoming missiles with PDC, or spread apart so only the targeted ship could hit it?

Suicide Junkie · #10 January 6th, 2005, 11:53 PM

With realistic combat being fought at reasonable distances, sure.
I was thinking more along the lines of the overlapping formations and dogfighting I see in SE4 combat...

BTW, in the example there, I'd rather have at least that one ship be able to return fire effectively, rather than none of them.