Welcome to Star Citizen Base

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


Imperium Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


About Reavern

  • Rank
    Warrior Wordsmith
  • Birthday 09/20/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Writing, video games, and watching movies.

Star Citizen Info

  • Pledge
    Space Marshal

Recent Profile Visitors

4,313 profile views
  1. That would make sense. And I've been waiting for the Caterpillar Module Sale ever since the ship became flyable back in January. I suppose CIG is waiting until Alpha 3.0 because the roles that the modules will perform won't be functional until then, at the earliest. Although that didn't stop them from selling the Retaliator modules, which was nearly 2 years ago; or all the modules for the Endeavor. Regardless if the comment meant 15 module types for the Cat, or 15 modules could be equipped by a Cat, I think the Cat should be able to equip different numbers of modules than 4, no more or no less. I can't imagine why the Cat couldn't equip fewer than 4. And I think it could equip up to 6 and still be landable on a planet with normal gravity. I hope CR and CIG reconsiders the 4 module limit.
  2. Firstly, a Caterpillar isn't a combat ship. Sure, it's equipped with weapons, like every ship in Star Citizen. But the Cat isn't a dogfighter. It can't pull off rapid combat maneuvers -- not because it's too fragile, but because its maneuvering thrusters aren't powerful enough to move the 100 metre long ship like that. Second, it's true that the Mars spacecraft from the movie The Martian wasn't designed for agile combat maneuvers. However, the Space Combat Speed in Star Citizen is relatively slow. The average combat ship has top speed of 200 metres per second in SCM, which equates to 720 kph. The cruising speed of a Boeing 777 passenger plane is 900 kph. So 30th century starfighters are flying slower than a gloried air bus. Whereas the space shuttle traveled at a maximum velocity of 28,000 kph. Presumably the fictional but realistic Mars spacecraft will travel even faster. Even a minor course correction at 30,000+ kph would subject the ship to incredible stresses. Whereas if the Mars ship was only traveling at 200 metres per second, I think it could withstand the stresses of (relatively) rapid maneuvers. Admittedly, I'm not a physicist so I don't have hard data to back this up, but given the extremes between Star Citizen's SCM speeds and realistic 21st century space flight, I think they're comparable. Regardless, the fictional 30th century ships in Star Citizen are supposed to be extremely robust. The telescoping spine of the Hull E would probably be comparable in length to a Caterpillar with 15 modules. But the Hull E's spine is laden with millions of kilograms of cargo! If it can handle that stress, then I don't see any realistic argument precluding the Caterpillar from equipping 15 modules -- other than a purely aesthetic reason.
  3. There's no practical reason why the Caterpillar couldn't equip 15 Modules, as long as it was limited to space flight and not flying or landing on a planet. Real-life and realistic fictional space ships are often long and narrow designs, because they have to be modular pieces that are lifted into orbit via rockets and assembled in space. With existing technology, humans can't construct a space ship like the Enterprise or a Star Destroyer. That's why the space ships intended to travel to Mars look like this: That ship, from the movie The Martian, is a helluvalot longer than a Caterpillar with 15 modules. The Endeavor and Hull series will have far more ship configuration variations than the Caterpillar, so I don't buy the argument that the Cat's flight mechanics will be too unwieldy or difficult to simulate if it diverges from only 4 modules. It's not a matter of the physical limitations of Star Citizen's 30th century space ships. It's strictly a ship design philosophy of Chris Roberts and CIG. We're forced to live with it whether we agree with it or not. I'd certainly prefer greater flexibility in the number of modules a Caterpillar can equip. I personally wouldn't want to attach 15 modules to my Cat. But there could be instances wherein having 6-8 modules would be useful. I think CIG should allow Cat owners to choose how many modules the ship can equip.
  4. I don't consider Star Citizen P2W because the larger and more expensive ships can be as much as a liability as a benefit. Those of us who own an Idris Frigate aren't going to automatically win against any enemy we encounter. An Idris will require several players and NPCs to operate properly, and they'll have to be paid. The Idris will be a fuel guzzler and its ammo and missiles will be very expensive. It's unclear how an Idris will earn money. I expect there will be high level combat missions specifically for cap ships that will pay enough creds to keep an Idris running. If not... cap ships will just be a $$$ pit. Regardless if an Idris is profitable or not, it's not invincible. An Idris could easily be overwhelmed by smaller, less expensive ships, especially bombers and boarding craft. A Retaliator heavy bomber is 1/5th the price of an Idris-P and it could potentially cripple or destroy an Idris Frigate with its Size9 torpedoes. Multiple starfighters and bombers, supported by a boarding ship, like the Cutlass or Caterpillar, could disable and capture an Idris. If you added up the $$$ price of those ships, together they might not even equal an Idris. Therefore, Star Citizen is hardly P2W because smaller, less expensive ships -- that can be earned in-game -- can overwhelm and defeat a large, expensive pledge ship. That said, the backers who have chosen to spend $$$ on pledge ships will have an initial advantage over those who only have a Starter Ship. I consider it a head start. Buying a better pledge ship will allow players to skip the traditional entry-level grinding, which is the least fun of every progression-based game. Paying a little extra to skip that part is absolutely worthwhile IMO. That was my rationale from when I pledged for Star Citizen way back during the November 2012 Kickstarter campaign. I could've just bought a $30 Scout package that included an Aurora MR. Instead I chose to buy the $225 Rear Admiral package for the Constellation, because I knew it would enable me to skip the tedious milk run missions that the Aurora would be limited to, and perform more profitable missions from the start. Considering how much more cargo the Connie holds compared to the Aurora, it might be possible to earn enough profit from a few cargo hauling missions to afford to buy an Aurora in-game. Whereas I expect it will take dozens of hours of grinding for an Aurora owner to afford to buy a Connie. I don't want to do that. I also wanted to pledge money to support Star Citizen's development, so I gladly paid $225. I didn't pay that money so that I'd gain a competitive advantage over other players and use my Connie to grief Starter players. Again, it's not P2W. The only way Star Citizen might be P2W is if certain players spend $$$ on UECs. Doing that will enable them to buy higher tier weapons and components than those that are equipped by factory stock ships, regardless if they're pledge ships or purchased in-game. However, CIG has imposed a 150,000 UEC cap on UEC purchases, which limits how much backers can buy. 150,000 UECs isn't a lot of creds in-game. I think an Aurora MR is supposed to cost around 100,000 UECs and a F7C Hornet is supposed to cost 300,000 UECs. So buying 150,000 UECs for $150 isn't going to provide a significant advantage for players who try to P2W. That said, I think we'll find out if P2W is going to be a serious problem after Alpha 3.0 is released.
  5. I agree that ship insurance should be simple and straightforward. I was just explaining what CR said years ago ship insurance. I have no idea if that's still valid or CR and CIG has rethought ship insurance. I think the way that Hull Insurance should work (for both Standard Hull Insurance and Life-Time Insurance) is that if the player loses their ship, it will be replaced with an identical factory model -- basically a brand new ship. If the ship was a stock F7C Hornet, the replacement would be a stock F7C Hornet. If the player modded the F7C with different weapons and components, Hull Insurance wouldn't cover those mods; the replacement ship would be a stock F7C. If the player paid extra for Component/Hardpoint Insurance, the modded weapons and components would be covered; so the replacement ship would be equipped with the same weapons and components, with full ammo and missiles. If Hull Insurance doesn't cover a ship's ammo and missiles, I'm indifferent to it. On the one hand, when the player bought the ship, it (presumably) came with full ammo and missiles. So why wouldn't the replacement ship come with them? (When you purchase a car from a dealership, it comes with a full tank of gas.) But if Hull Insurance doesn't include full ammo and missiles with the replacement ship, it won't matter that much because I'm definitely going to pay for Component/Hardpoint Insurance. However, if Component/Hardpoint Insurance doesn't cover ammo and missiles, then I'll really be PO'd. Imagine losing a Constellation and receiving a replacement, then having to spend ~50,000 UECs to fully stock it with missiles. That would suck.
  6. This info might be out-of-date, but I remember from several years ago that the CR explained that ship hull insurance would replace a ship in the same condition as it was when it was destroyed. I know that seems confusing, because if the ship was under attack when it was destroyed, it would be critically damaged. It wouldn't make sense for insurance to deliver a critically damaged replacement ship. (How would that even work? Would they take a new ship and deliberately damage it?) The explanation for this was that it's intended to prevent players from scamming the insurance system by choosing to destroy their ship rather than pay UECs for repairs, fuel, and/or ammo. If a player botched a landing, lost a wing during combat, or used all of their ballistic ammo and missiles, then decided to deliberately destroy their ship, insurance would replace it damaged, without a wing, or without any ammo. This would prevent players from scamming the hull insurance system. However, this could be a problem for legit insurance claims, as I mentioned earlier. I speculate that hull insurance will function similar to an auto-save feature, which will be triggered after certain events. For example, if the player's ship was in perfect condition when it engaged in combat against a dozen Vanduul Scythes, the game would auto-save the ship's state at the start of combat. If the player lost and their ship was destroyed, hull insurance would replace it with a new ship in perfect condition. Whereas if the player defeated the Vanduul but their ship was heavily damaged in battle, the ship's damaged state would be auto-saved since combat was over. If the player (foolishly) decided to push their luck instead of returning to base for repairs, and they were attacked and destroyed by a second group of Vanduul, insurance would replace the damaged ship. Or if the player tried to scam the insurance system by flying their damaged ship into an asteroid and ejecting, they'd receive a damaged replacement ship. To answer your question, whether hull insurance will replace a ship with full ammo and missiles will depend on its last recorded "auto-save" state. Regardless, CIG has told us that there will be 3 types of insurance: Hull, Component/Hardpoint, and Cargo. I expect that Component/Hardpoint insurance will cover ammo and missiles. So even if the player's ship was out of ammo and missiles during its last recorded "auto-save", Component/Hardpoint insurance would replenish them with the replacement ship.
  7. I'm not surprised if the Hull C ends up being larger than the concept's size. I don't think there's been a multi-crew ship yet that hasn't grown in size during the Production phase, and the larger ships have increased the most in size.
  8. I understand the "rule of cool" argument, but it's disappointing that CIG seems enslaved by it. I also understand that the Eclipse was probably limited to 3 x Size 9 torpedoes because it's half the Retaliator's ordinance payload, and CIG didn't want to make the Tali completely irrelevant. However, I strongly believe that the Tali will be receiving a major Update & Rework before SC's PU launch, which is supported by CIG's statement in the Eclipse Q&A: My point is that if and when CIG decides to update/rework the Retaliator, I believe it's going to receive some major improvements. CIG specifically mentioned "capacity," which presumably means torpedo capacity, and it was the first item on the list, so it's probably their top priority for the Tali rework. I believe that CIG will increase the Tali's torpedo capacity to 12 x Size 9 torpedoes, which was the Retaliator's original bomb/torpedo capacity, dating all the way back to the Kickstarter campaign. If I remember correctly, the Tali's gun turrets are limited to 2 x Size 1 guns and the default loadouts are CF-007 Bulldog laser repeaters, which are peashooters, completely ineffective at shooting down enemy interceptors. CIG has stated they are working on improving turret gameplay. In this week's AtV, CIG demonstrated AI-controlled gun turrets, which utterly shredded a Gladius with near-perfect accuracy. I doubt CIG plans to replace the Tali's manned gun turrets with AI gun turrets. Perhaps they'll replace one with an automated Point-Defense gun turret, similar to the Phoenix or 890 Jump. However, I believe that most of the Tali's gun turrets will be manned (by default). I think CIG should increase the Tali's gun turret size to 2 x Size 3 and make them ballistic cannons by default (so that any hit to an enemy interceptor will inflict some damage). Also, the Tali's forward dorsal gun turret should be the largest, equipping either 2 x Size 4 cannons, or quad Size 3s, like the Anvil Hurricane's gun turret. Another idea is some of the Tali's turrets could slide along tracks, or telescope out from the hull, for greater coverage. Perhaps the two aft dorsal turrets could retract into the hull, raise/lower on elevators, and re-deploy on the ventral side. (The chair lift to get the gunner into the turret already occupies a lot of interior room. It wouldn't require much more room for the whole gun turret to move through the hull. So why not? Rule of cool!) And, of course, the Tali's internal layout needs a lot of work. It's ridiculous that all of the Escape Pods are on the upper deck, which isn't used for anything other than the crew's living quarters, and is only accessible via one ladder located behind the cockpit. (The Tali is a death trap! Most of the crew would be better off bailing out the bomb bay doors than trying to reach the escape pods in an emergency.) I admit, that's off-topic. Suffice to say the Retaliator needs a lot of work and CIG promises to get to it eventually. When that happens, I believe that the Tali's role as a heavy bomber will be more significant, and players will be saying, "Why are we dicking around with multiple Gladiators, Eclipses, and Harbingers, when we could just use one Retaliator instead?" The Retaliator will be distinguished as a heavy hitter when overwhelming force is needed, whereas the Eclipse will be a stealth bomber used in surprise attacks. I don't understand your claim "The Tali uses speed". The Eclipse Q&A states that the Retaliator is the slowest bomber -- only the Polaris is slower than the Tali, and it's a capital ship. As I wrote above, CIG has said they plan on reworking and improving the Retaliator sometime in the future, which should enhance its destructive capabilities and set it apart from the other bombers. For one, I think the Tali should be able to carry "dumb bombs" that can be dropped vertically from the bomb bays. From the lore, it's been established that the Tali was used to carpet bomb Vanduul-held planets. Carpet bombing doesn't require guided bombs or torpedoes. And with interceptors, picket ships, countermeasures, point-defense auto-turrets, and electronic warfare systems, launching guided torpedoes at enemy cap ships doesn't seem like it will have a high success rate. Instead, it might be more effective for the Tali to fly-over an enemy cap ship and drop unguided bombs, which couldn't be fooled by countermeasures or jammers, would be very difficult to shoot down, and deliver a lot more firepower on the target than a half dozen torpedoes could. Naturally, the trade-off would be the Tali is more exposed to enemy fire, but as a heavy bomber, it would be better equipped to handle it than an Eclipse, Gladiator, or Harbinger. It's fair to say that the Retaliator has been neglected by CIG because its intended role isn't applicable in-game (yet). That will change in the future, when CIG (finally) introduces the "Capture the Idris" game mode, at which time bombers will be able to perform their roles. I don't know if CIG will have completed the rework/update to the Tali for when the Idris is flyable in-game, but it should happen sometime after. I look forward to using the Tali then. In the meantime, I suppose I'll just have to make do with the other bombers, like the Eclipse.
  9. Yes, the rotary launcher does exist and the military does use it. I wasn't disputing that. I'm talking about the most practical and efficient usage of the limited space inside the Eclipse's internal torpedo bay. The Eclipse could use a spindle launcher, similar to the B-52's Common Strategic Rotary Launcher (CSRL), pictured here: Or it could be loaded with A LOT MORE bombs in a simple rack system, pictured here: Obviously, the latter carries more ordinance and more efficiently utilizes the available space than the former. The difference is that the rotary launcher is used for precision guided weapons, like cruise missiles, whereas the latter simply drops a shit load of unguided bombs. Another possible advantage of the rotary launcher is that the missiles could have different warheads (high explosive, bunker buster, nuclear, etc.) and the rotary launcher allows a specific missile to be selected, spun into firing position, and launched. I understand that. However, none of that is relevant regarding the Eclipse, because in the concept art and holo-table 3D model, it shows the 3 Size 9 torpedoes being carried side-by-side, which means that one specific torpedo could be selected and launched. If the Eclipse's rotary spindle also only carries 3 Size 9 torpedoes, then WHAT IS THE POINT!?! At least the 3 side-by-side configuration would allow all 3 torpedoes to be launched simultaneously, as depicted in the concept art. Whereas the spindle launcher could only launch the torpedoes one at a time -- possibly in rapid succession, depending on how fast CIG makes the rotating and launch mechanism. But it will never be as fast or as simple or as reliable as dropping 3 torpedoes at the same time. That's my point.
  10. Yes, I've seen the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber use a spindle... in movies, like Broken Arrow. And those fictional super-jets in the terrible movie Stealth. I'm not sure if the B-2 actually uses the spindle to carry certain types of bombs, like nuclear cruise missiles or something. But it's far more common for the B-2 to drop dozens/hundreds of dumb-bombs, like in this pic: Those aren't carried on a spindle. Then there are the internal missile bays of the most advanced stealthy fet fighters, like the F-22 Raptor: ... and F-35 Lightning II: They don't use missile spindles, because the spindle is a waste of space, and RL warplanes are designed to carry as much missiles and bombs as they can physically hold and their airframes can support. If CIG wants to design a brilliant futuristic missile carrying/launching system that carries more missiles/bombs/torpedoes than a simple, tried-&-true, WWII B-17 Flying Fortress rail-&-rack style system, they should absolutely do that. It would be great! But they shouldn't rip off an impractical but "cool-looking" Hollywood invention that the RL military doesn't bother with because it's obvious inefficiency.
  11. I hadn't seen that AtV yet. In it, they did explain that the Eclipse's torpedo launching mechanism, which is different than holo-viewer 3D model that shows 3 torpedoes side-by-side in the torpedo bay (use X-ray view). Also, the following concept art pic shows that the torpedoes are arranged side-by-side, not on a spindle. The concept art also shows Eclipses firing 1, 2, or 3 torpedoes simultaneously... but that could be artistic license for the sake of making the concept art look as spectacular as possible. Regardless, CIG has a track record of making changes to ships between the Concept reveal and the flyable versions, i.e. the Vanguard. I admit that I dislike the spindle mechanism, because it is over-complicated and inefficient in Star Citizen ships. If the spindle held at least 4 torpedoes, ideally different types, it might be justified, because the pilot could choose which torpedo to fire from the spindle. But since the Eclipse can apparently only hold 3 torpedoes, it makes no sense, because the spindle mechanism occupies valuable space in the torpedo bay. As I pointed out, the holo-viewer and concept art shows that 3 Size 9 torpedoes can fit in side-by-side configuration. But if the spindle is added, the torpedo bay would have to be "deeper" to accommodate it and the 3 torpedoes attached to it. If the Eclipse's torpedo bay is that deep, it could probably hold a second stack of 3 torpedoes in side-by-side configuration, for a total of 6. I can't imagine why the UEE Navy would opt for a spindle loader, which could potentially jam or break, and holds fewer torpedoes, versus a simpler, tried-and-true, side-by-side configuration that would hold more torpedoes. The differences in "stealth" between to the two systems would be inconsequential, because the torpedo bay doors appear to tuck up against the Eclipse's ventral hull, creating only a marginally larger cross-section when the doors are open. That would be a small price to pay for the Eclipse to be able to launch 3 torpedoes simultaneously, then close the doors and turn away to withdraw. Versus the Eclipse only being able to fire one torpedo at a time and probably having to make 3 torpedo runs, instead of 1. It seems like CIG deliberately chose to make the Eclipse's torpedo launching mechanism unnecessarily complicated and restricted to one torpedo at a time, instead of designing it to be practical, functional, efficient, and robust, like any military aircraft designer would do IRL. The irony is that the Sabre's missile bay design was also criticized when it was revealed in a greybox model animation, but for the opposite reason. Backers criticized that the missile hardpoints were on the missile doors, instead of inside the missile bay itself (which is how RL modern aircraft carry their missiles/bomb internally). The doors and especially the opening/closing mechanisms would have to be much more robust to carry and launch two Size 2 missiles each. Whereas if the hardpoints were in the recessed missile bay, they'd be more secure and could be dropped out the bottom, and the missile bay doors would only need to function as doors. Also, the doors could tuck up against the ventral hull when open and the missiles wouldn't add to the Sabre's cross-section, since they'd remain inside the missile bay. CIG has the bad habit of making ships more complicated than they need to be, and those questionable design choices often limit ships' potential. I sincerely hope that CIG rethinks the torpedo bay design during the Production phase and ditches the spindle. Even if they don't increase the Eclipse's torpedo capacity using the wasted space that the spindle occupied, it would still be better to ditch the stupid spindle.
  12. I've read the Eclipse Q&A and CIG didn't explicitly state there (or anywhere else I've read) that the Eclipse can only launch one torpedo at a time. The Eclipse doesn't use an elaborate loading or launch mechanism, like the Retaliator; each torpedo is loaded in each of the three Size 9 pylon hardpoint and the torpedoes are dropped out of the torpedo bay when launched. There don't appear to be any mechanical reasons why the Eclipse would be restricted to launching only a single torpedo at a time. Whereas the Tali can fire a maximum of 4 torpedoes in its first volley, and 2 in its second, because of its over-complicated loading and launching mechanism. Ultimately, CIG will decide how many torpedoes the Eclipse can fire at a time. For ship balance reasons, they will probably limit the Eclipse to one torpedo at a time, but without official confirmation from CIG we can't just assume that. In the Q&A, it stated that the lock time for the Eclipse's Size 9 torpedoes is fairly long (although the actual time isn't stated), which makes torpedoes ineffective for dogfighting. Considering that it can takes IR missiles ~5 seconds to lock-on to a target, it must take Size 9 torpedoes considerably longer to lock on -- probably 10 seconds or longer. That's a fairly long time between shots. Factor in that the Eclipse is the fastest bomber (travelling in a straight line) and the maximum range of most missiles is ~3000 metres (but probably greater for torpedoes), it seems unlikely that the Eclipse will be able to consecutively launch multiple torpedoes in the same attack run. Unless it's deliberately flying at less than max velocity, to buy itself more time. However, it doesn't make sense that the lock-on time is so long, or that it resets after each missile/torpedo launch, like how it currently works. Because the ship's sensors and avionics are used to lock-on to the target, not the missile's, because the ship's sensors and avionics will always be superior to those packed into the missile. (This is how modern jet fighters and bombers work today.) So it doesn't make sense that the target lock is lost every time a missile is fired, because the missile wasn't aiming itself, the ship was aiming the missile. Therefore, there shouldn't be a long lock-on time for the second or third torpedoes, as long as they're being fired at the same target. If the Eclipse chose to aim the second/third torpedo at a different target, it makes sense it would have to go through the long lock-on time. Again, CIG ultimately decides how long the lock-on time will be and the restrictions of the system. For ship balance, CIG has apparently decided that all missile weapons will lose target lock after a missile is fired, forcing the pilot to go through the lock-on process all over again. Perhaps CIG will add improved Avionics components that will speed up lock-on times or won't lose target launch after missile launch. But we don't know yet. My overall point is that ships and weapons will work however CIG decides they will work in Star Citizen. CR and CIG's goal is to make a FUN space combat sim, not an ultra-realistic space combat sim. The ships in SC already travel much SLOWER in Space Combat Mode than modern jet fighters do in the AIR, and SC ships fight at a lot closer distances than modern jet fighters do, especially when using missiles. That is all for the sake of fun. From a realism perspective, it doesn't make sense why 30th century weapons, sensors, and ships would be so limited. The only explanation is that it's for the sake of fun.
  13. I believe this is covered in Item 2.0, Room & Object Container Systems. We already know that Alpha 3.0 will allow Dragonflies to be carried safely aboard ships, and presumably Ursa Rovers too. I expect that CIG will include a way to spawn a Dragonfly or rover inside a suitable ship's cargo bay, I imagine similar to how we can interact with a ship's hardpoints and components in Hangar and on landing pads in the PU. There could be an item node on the floor of a cargo bay, which will allow plays to spawn in vehicles.
  14. The Eclipse model in that pic appears to be in the "expanded" flight mode for atmospheric flight, not landed mode. The lines of the wings and moving wingtips are just visible, so you can see where they'd fold up. In landed mode, the Eclipse would probably technically fit, but it wouldn't be practical or safe. Since the Eclipse is shorter nose-to-tail than it is wide, and the Polaris' hangar is longer than it is wide, the Eclipse could probably land 90-degrees and fit properly. I don't think there's any reason why a ship has to land inside the Polaris with its nose pointed forward. Regardless, these are both concept ship models, not production models, so their designs can still change. All of the large ships have gotten larger during the production phase, including the Constellation, Retaliator, Caterpillar, and Starfarer. CIG will realize they missed something during grayboxing and have to increase the Polaris Corvette's size at least 10%. CIG will adjust the dimensions of the Polaris' hangar to accommodate as many military ships as possible, including the Eclipse. Based on this month's JP, the Eclipse was designed from inception to fit inside an Idris Frigate, presumably for Squadron 42. The Eclipse is intended to be carried, so I think CIG will figure out a way to make it fit inside a Polaris too.
  15. For the reason I explained: They don't want mil-spec Hornets to end up in Vanduul hands. Instead, the UEE permitted Anvil Aerospace to sell the F7C to civilians. The Jump Point regarding Anvil Aerospace explained how strict the military secret regulations were regarding the manufacturing of the Military Hornet and Civilian Hornet. The reason why the UEE military allows ship manufacturers to sell civilian variants of military ships is also explained: However, the UEE military definitely doesn't want mil-spec ships to be sold to civilians, which is why the F7A isn't sold to civilians. Based on that, the logical explanation for why the UEE military is allowing the Aegis Eclipse to be sold to UEE citizens for the first time is most likely that the military has something better hidden behind closed doors. It's possible that Aegis has just begun secret production of a new and improved stealth bomber, such as an Eclipse Mk. II, and rather than shutting down or converting their existing Eclipse manufacturing lines, they're selling them to the civilian market instead. From a manufacturing perspective, Eclipse production was probably optimized after 17+ years. Aegis wouldn't want to discard all that time and effort they put into maximizing the efficiency of Eclipse production, which is why it would be the perfect time to mass produce Eclipses for the civilian market. As I highlighted in bold above, the RSI Eclipse page has that disclaimer and states that only UEE citizens with an established track record for loyalty are allowed to purchase the Eclipse. Of course, that's just sales BS, but from a lore perspective, it presumably means that UEE regulations require Aegis ship dealers to vet the customers who want to buy the Eclipse, checking if they have a criminal record and screening out disreputable types. That means it's technically not a "civilian" ship, rather a "citizen" ship. We know that one of the ways that people acquire citizenship in the UEE is completing military service. Therefore, the UEE has some peace of mind that Eclipses will be used by loyal citizens for the greater good of the UEE. (That might be a little naive, but it's understandable.)