Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Idris(M)

Posted Image

6 x Class 5: Behring M3C ASA Turrets
1 x Class 6: Behring M5C STS Turret
1 x Class 6: A&R Plowshare Anti-Ship Missile Launcher (ASML)
1 x Class 8: Klaus & Werner Zestroyer Spinal Mount Rail Gun

 

Idris(P)

Posted Image

7 x Class 5: Behring M3C ASA Turrets
1 x Class 6: Behring M5C STS Turret

 

-----------------------------------

What roles do you guys see the two ships?

How much of impact will the railgun have over not having?

How many people you think will upgrade to the (M) when they sell the kits for the (P)?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will serve different roles, IMHO.

 

The -M strikes me as being something of a mini-destroyer.  The spinal rail gun should pack enough punch to go toe-to-toe with other corvettes.  On the other hand, it's very focused in scope - traders and explorers won't find as much use for it.

 

The -P is more well-rounded.  While it would probably lose hands-down to a -M, it would hold its own against smaller craft.  In fact, the additional M3A turret might allow the -P to function better in an anti-fighter role than the -M, which is focused on fighting other capital ships.  The expanded cargo capacity would allow traders to haul more goods, and explorers to stockpile more fuel.  I would also imagine that the -P would have more upgrade slots (due to the lack of rail gun) which could allow for more customization than the -M.

 

When it comes down to it, the -P is probably better in the long run but the -M wins in coolness factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at this size comparison:

 

Posted Image

 

What roles do you guys see the two ships?

 

(M) - System defense and Heavy Escort. The Idris isn't large enough and doesn't have enough firepower to be an assault ship. It isn't large enough to be a Capital ship for the UEE, maybe for (Non-Player) smaller military factions and Corporations. It might be used in large numbers for system defense. It also might be used as a Heavy escort for capital ships, it also might be used as armored transport.

 

(P) - Capital Ship, Light Assault Ship, Interceptor and Armored Transport. It depends on who is using it, but this ship will be used by smaller factions as a Capital Ship. It might be used by pirates or mercenaries as a Light Assault ship against lone targets and also might be used as Interceptor (Because it's jump capable) and Armored transport for High Value Cargo.

 

How much of impact will the railgun have over not having?

 

It depends on how powerful that gun is, but it's still a downside of the P variant since less firepower means less protection against pirates and rival companies.

 

How many people you think will upgrade to the (M) when they sell the kits for the (P)?

 

I don't really think they will sell kits for the P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st - anti capital ship (missiles+railgun)

2nd - anti small/medium craft (more turrets)

 

At this point i'd say the anticapital would be better. You won't be flying this alone, but with escort that should take care of smaller craft (and you still have a good number of turrets), but against other capital ship it can pack a punch. Not sure how the railgun and missile damage measures with that of a retaliator or gladiator bombers, but I'd guess railgun has good range, although you'd have to point the ship straight and with this size it's not easy. 

 

Also the image scale - isn't  the Bengal is too big?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the image scale - isn't  the Bengal is too big?

 

It's probably about right.  But it is damn massive! 

 

Also, considering that CR said that the Bengal would not be purchasable, but would need to be taken by force, I can't wait to see the first assault on one! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I went to watch the first trailer, with the Bengal carrier to check the size. Yup, pretty much a hornet is the size of a turret on Bengal. I just wonder if Idris will be blasted into tiny bits - the turret size difference (assuming correlates with ordnance caliber) between the two capitals is massive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to see the idris as a stand-back repair/refuel platfom for fighters.

Good for vanduul raiding, and general fighter support.

 

I think I'd like the spinal mount.

But I prefer the AA gun of the P over the ship2ship gun on the M ... unless the ship2ship guns work out well for AA too.

 

-scheherazade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait to see the 100:1 longshot of a rail gun round pulverizing a moving Constellation.  It'd be like hitting a deer with a Revolutionary War solid-ball cannon.

Maybe that is where the A&R Plowshare Anti-Ship Missile Launcher (ASML) comes into play?

 

I do wish there was more information about those two ships and how they are different at least the weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both look like WWII ships to me, though personally I like the look the -P more.  

 

Strategically, I agree with most people that they'll fill different roles depending on load out.  Though I think it'll be a lot closer than we may be led to believe.  They're essentially the same ship with different guns and cargo bays.  The basic design and, so far as we know, powerplants/thrusters are all the same.  

 

I am curious as to the power of the railgun.  Last I saw it was supposed to be 130m long or some such.  Considering we've currently got railguns around 10m long that can shoot things in the supersonic range, what kind of power will the Idris rail gun have?   I'd guess near-light-speed projectiles, especially in space where there's no appreciable drag.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In space there is no air to insulate, or to conduct/diffuse.

 

In space you can actually make a lightning gun, because you can fire directed electrons and they will keep propagating.

 

A very high voltage gun like a railgun, given existing tech, placed into space/vacuum, would likely have a set of new issues to resolve.

 

-scheherazade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strategically, I agree with most people that they'll fill different roles depending on load out.  Though I think it'll be a lot closer than we may be led to believe.  They're essentially the same ship with different guns and cargo bays.  The basic design and, so far as we know, powerplants/thrusters are all the same. 

 

Also, these are only the stock options.  I'm sure that they'll eventually be modded by the owners into an unrecognizable state, with all manner of third-party equipment.  Who knows what shapes they'll take?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read a few posts from developers who seem to suggest that the Idris-P will be the one you want if you plan to make money with it.  It does have 20% more cargo space at least.  

 

The real question mark is how much will these fine ships cost to operate.  Crewed by NPCs or players, both ways will cost money.  The ship mass is not too much more than a Starfarer, but it has 8 engines.  I wonder if that will be fuel efficient or not.  If the turrets are not terribly effective against small craft, you will need to hire more escort too.

 

Dev statements have indicated that a fully upgraded Idris will be quite the unstoppable beast.  I shudder to think at how expensive they will be to upgrade.  Friends will have gone through two new ships and a variety of equipment load outs, while I am still trying to earn enough to replace 8 engines, or my shield system. :)

 

I have heard some players suggest that you could fit more small craft, like the P52 on an Idris than the 2 Hornets that would normally fit.  Does anyone have any insight into how we can fit ships on an open hanger deck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard some players suggest that you could fit more small craft, like the P52 on an Idris than the 2 Hornets that would normally fit.  Does anyone have any insight into how we can fit ships on an open hanger deck?

I'm not sure, CIG might limit us to the 2 fighters.  But if you look at it just in terms of deck space, it seems like you could put 3-4 Hornets in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur with scheherazade, my plan for the Idris is one of fighter support.  Initially I was looking at the P as a downgraded version of the M, and maybe that's true in terms of parts value, but the P should be more effective in a fighter support role.  My plan is to swap out those ship to ship missiles for anti-fighter/anti-torpedo systems.  The P is already faster than any other capital ship in the game, so it will never have to stick around for a capital ship fight.  Might as well make it invincible against bombers, and use the extra 20 tons of cargo to haul extra fuel and ammo for the fighters.

 

Edit: As far as fighter support, half of what either Idris could contribute may be sensor coverage.  That big radar system might be able to pick out choice targets over a large area, rather than the fighters just flying circles and hoping for an encounter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur with scheherazade, my plan for the Idris is one of fighter support.  Initially I was looking at the P as a downgraded version of the M, and maybe that's true in terms of parts value, but the P should be more effective in a fighter support role.  My plan is to swap out those ship to ship missiles for anti-fighter/anti-torpedo systems.  The P is already faster than any other capital ship in the game, so it will never have to stick around for a capital ship fight.  Might as well make it invincible against bombers, and use the extra 20 tons of cargo to haul extra fuel and ammo for the fighters.

 

Edit: As far as fighter support, half of what either Idris could contribute may be sensor coverage.  That big radar system might be able to pick out choice targets over a large area, rather than the fighters just flying circles and hoping for an encounter.

 

Where'd you get the information that the Idris-P is the fastest cap ship in the game?

 

As the smallest cap ship, that's a plausible assumption -- but I'm not aware of any information confirming it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where'd you get the information that the Idris-P is the fastest cap ship in the game?

 

As the smallest cap ship, that's a plausible assumption -- but I'm not aware of any information confirming it.

 

Fair enough, that was an assumption.  Wing Commander/Privateer, and by some indications Star Citizen, seem to follow an unwritten rule that bigger is slower.  Corvette is likely to be the smallest class of capital ship, and the -P version is said to be faster.  So my primary concern in terms of defending a -P is Retaliators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, that was an assumption.  Wing Commander/Privateer, and by some indications Star Citizen, seem to follow an unwritten rule that bigger is slower.  Corvette is likely to be the smallest class of capital ship, and the -P version is said to be faster.  So my primary concern in terms of defending a -P is Retaliators.

 

I'm of the same general principle, unless they make an exception for a particularly fast frigate or destroyer by name.

 

On the subject of speed, I'm thinking that Retaliators will be less of a threat.  Torpedoes are, historically in other games, extremely damaging but also extremely slow.  I think that the Idris will still have enough speed to out-maneuver them.  The Retaliator also strikes me as being relatively slow, so it would have to fire its payload at long range to avoid the brunt of accurate turret-fire.

 

The Gladiator, however, still packs something like 6 missile hardpoints and should be quick enough to avoid defensive fire and unload its torpedoes at close range.  That's the bomber that really worries me.

 

EDIT:  The Gladiator carries 6 missiles.  The Retaliator carries 12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the same general principle, unless they make an exception for a particularly fast frigate or destroyer by name.

 

On the subject of speed, I'm thinking that Retaliators will be less of a threat.  Torpedoes are, historically in other games, extremely damaging but also extremely slow.  I think that the Idris will still have enough speed to out-maneuver them.  The Retaliator also strikes me as being relatively slow, so it would have to fire its payload at long range to avoid the brunt of accurate turret-fire.

 

The Gladiator, however, still packs something like 12 missile hardpoints and should be quick enough to avoid defensive fire and unload its torpedoes at close range.  That's the bomber that really worries me.

 

Firstly, I don't think the Star Citizen should follow the lead of any other game, including Wing Commander and Freelancer -- SC should blaze its own trail and be the space combat MMO that sets the new benchmark of how all other genre games are compared.

 

Therefore, the idea that spatial torpedoes must be extremely slow to balance their extreme destructive power, that's an outmoded idea. The only reason why people believe that torpedoes must be slow is because RL torpedoes travel through water, which makes them much slower than missiles travelling through air. But in space, torpedoes won't be restricted by water (or air), so they should be able to travel just as fast as missiles.

 

The idea that a 140+ ton corvette can outrun or outmaneuver an anti-capital ship torpedo is ridiculous, regardless of how fast the Idris-P is. That's like a 70 ton main battle tank being able to outrun a Hellfire missile. :rolleyes: It's absurd. A torpedo might miss, or be intercepted by point-defence guns, or fooled by countermeasures, or jammed by an ECM -- but a torpedo isn't going to get deked by a cap ship.

 

I disagree that the Retaliator will be slow. It has 5 x TR5 main thrusters and weighs 89 tons, plus up to 30 tons of bombs/torpedoes. The Constellation weighs 75 tons and has 4 x TR6 mains. The Gladiator is 38 tons plus 10 tons of bombs/torpedoes, and it only has a single TR4 main thruster (like the Hornet). The Retaliator should be much faster than a Gladiator.

 

Doing a very simple comparison of thrusters to mass ratio, and ignoring the difference in thrust power of each thruster class/size (because we don't know the numbers yet), the following is the amount of mass each main thruster has to propel for each ship:

 

Aurora LX (1 x TR3) = 16.5 tons

325a (1 x TR3) = 20 tons

350r (2 x TR3) = 17 tons / 2 = 8.5 tons

Hornet (1 x TR4) = 22 tons

Cutlass (1 x TR4) = 35 tons

M50 (2 x TR4) = 14 tons / 2 = 7 tons

Avenger (1 x TR5) = 32 tons

Vanduul Scythe (2 x TR4) = 19 tons / 2 = 9.5 tons

Gladiator (1 x TR4) = 38 tons + 10 tons (ordinance) = 48 tons

Freelancer (2 x TR5) = 55 tons / 2 = 27.5 tons

Constellation (4 x TR6) = 75 tons / 4 = 18.75 tons

Retaliator (5 x TR5) = 89 tons + 30 tons (ordinance) / 5 = 23.8 tons

Caterpillar (2 x TR5) = 68 tons / 2 = 34 tons

Starfarer (4 x TR4) = 125 tons / 4 = 31.25 tons

Idris (8 x TR4) = 139* tons / 8 = 17.375 tons

 

Lowest Mass to Thruster Ratio:

  • M50: 7 tons

  • Vanduul Scythe: 9.5 tons

  • 350r: 8.5 tons

  • Aurora LX: 16.5 tons

  • Idris*: 17.375 tons

  • Constellation: 18.75 tons

  • 325a: 20 tons

  • Hornet: 22 tons

  • Retaliator: 23.8 tons

  • Freelancer: 27.5 tons

  • Starfarer: 31.25 tons

  • Avenger: 32 tons

  • Caterpillar: 34 tons
  • Cutlass: 35 tons

  • Gladiator: 48 tons

 

(* - The Idris' supposed mass of 139 tons is almost certainly wrong. It's implausible for a ship of its size: 140 metres. I included it to demonstrate how ridiculous it is that Idris is one of "the fastest ships.")

 

A fully loaded Retaliator should be faster than many ships without any cargo. The Retaliator should be faster than both a loaded (48 ton) and unloaded (38 ton) Gladiator, and an empty Freelancer. A Retaliator could be faster than a Hornet, when you consider the Retaliator has TR5 mains and the Hornet only has a TR4. Therefore, the assumption that the Retaliator is "slow" is baseless. It's fair to assume the a Retaliator won't be an agile ship, but it's unfair to condemn it as slow.

 

I expect the best tactic for using Retaliators will be to position them toward the rear of a fleet formation, with starfighters at the front to engage and occupy the enemy's interceptors, and then order the strategic bombers execute their torpedo or bombing runs by flying directly toward the target at maximum speed. Only M50s, 350r's, Scythes, and Constellations should be able to chase down a Retaliator flying at maximum speed. Other ships, like a Hornet, could execute a head-on attack against an incoming Retaliator, but once they passed each other, a Hornet shouldn't be able to turn around catch up to it. The Retaliators would launch as many bombs or torpedoes as they could against their targets, then continue on their course out of the centre of the battle, then turn around, execute a second bombing run, and repeat until they're out of ordinance and have to RTB to rearm.

 

The Gladiator should be much slower than the Retaliator, because it only has a single TR4 main thruster to propel its 38 ton bulk, plus an addition 10 tons of ordinance. Also, the Gladiator only has 6 Class-3 missile hardpoints, not 12. The Retaliator has 12. The Gladiator should be much slower than the Retaliator, and multiple Gladiators would be requited to match a single Retaliator. The torpedo/dive bombers would need to be escorted by starfighters to stand a chance at reaching their targets and returning to base alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, right now, we have AI controlled gun turrets that can shoot cruise missiles out of the sky (see Phalanx CIWS).  Cruise missiles fly at several times the speed of sound.  They are by no means slow.  Cruise missiles are also largely useless against any ship equipped with such a gun system.

 

Concessions need to be made for fun and game balance.  Most aspects of the game are being designed around WWII, when human perception, intuition and reaction times were more useful.

 

The forums are constantly aflame with players who want to punish anyone who uses an NPC or AI, by making them "always" worse than having a real player manning said station.  If the game is to be balanced such that real players can have a greater impact than an NPC or AI, then torpedoes will have to be slowed down and have a chance of being dodged or shot down by a human player.

 

Slow is not baseless, it is a necessary balancing factor for the big boom that a player expects from such a weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

    • By PWS-Silver
      I'm suddenly in the market for an Idris-M, And from what I'm told, the only way I can get one right now is either from the grey market, and from buying the $15,000 or $27,000 game package...
       
      I'm just a normal guy, and even $1,000 is a bit too much for me to be spending on a game, but, here I am lol.
       
      So, down to business. I want the idris-m with LTI, I will pay $1,000 dollars for one.
      You send the ship, I send the money, boda-bing, boda-boom, everyone's happy... it seems paypal is pretty shadey so if you could suggest a safer method of payment that you would be more comfortable with, I would happily take suggestions and look into them, if not, paypal is fine.
       
      I do not currently have the money at the moment, so I might just be jumping the gun here, but I wanted to see what responses I would get in advance. It will take me a few months to save up the money for this purchase. But let me know, If nothing else I would like the hear some opinions, maybe some wise words to talk me out of doing this
    • By Weehamster
      LAST EDIT: 20/Jul/2018
      Hi everyone /
      I mainly have ships/vehicles that are either from lore, concept, development or being re-worked, and I constantly add more to the albums.
      NOTE: I've started to keep/restore the albums for ships that are now flyable as I've had a few requests for them. 
      Aopoa (Xi'An)
      Aegis
      Anvil
      Argo Astronautics
      BIRC (Banu)
      Consolidated Outland
      Crusader
      Drake
      Esperia
      Kruger
      MISC
      Origin
      RSI
      RSI/Aegis
      Tumbril
      Vanduul
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Ship Components
      -------------------------------------------- BONUS --------------------------------------------
      Characters
      First Person Components
      Places 
      Places: Terra
      Places: Odin
      Places: Stanton
      Gameplay
      Other
       
    • By SofiyaPavlovena
      Im liquefying. 2x Javelins, 2x idris-p and $1500+ worth of credit.

      DISCLAIMER: The hammer head, the p72's, and the m50 ARE NOT ON THE ACCOUNT. I sold them and am to lazy to retake the screenshots.

      https://imgur.com/a/p8Lolmw#CIu7SbU
      I've posted this to all the high rollers. First come first serve, I want fucking out.
    • By John Maynard
      I have been primarily flying the Vanguard for a few years now, and have seen the ups and downs of its performance. While I am in love with the idea of the ship, the design falls down with me in several areas. In this post (mostly copy-pasted from a post I made on Spectrum that didn't gather much response), I would like to gather some feedback on my thoughts for a dream rework. The one massive disclaimer with my idea is that it's highly unlikely to happen - it constitutes a massive internal redesign.
      I appreciate that many will disagree with me, but I would still like to hear what others think.
      When approaching this rework my first priority was improving survivability, and the second was increasing the offensive capabilities. Whilst attending to those tasks, I also wanted to retain a degree of versatility.
      The core idea of my rework is the amalgamation of the cockpit and the life pod. The dorsal turret would become unmanned and move to the rear to allow the pod to eject upwards. In the cockpit, the Pilot and RIO would sit side-by-side in fixed seats, with access to the rear between their seats. There would be an airtight door behind them leading to the life pod, which would now be directly attached to the cockpit. In the event of an emergancy, either operator could initiate the ejection sequence, firing the whole escape system upwards.   This achieves my primary aim, as it drastically reduces the time to escape. Previously, both crew would have to make their way to the life pod and launch it from there, which would take valuable seconds. Furthermore, combining the pod with the cockpit and separating them with an airtight door would mean that a pressurised environment could still be created in the event that either the cockpit or the pod were vented. It also results in a reduction in pressurised volume, lowering the chances of a depressurising hit. The pod would contain beds, personal weapons, food/water supplies, facilities to cook, and a toilet/shower combination, shrunk as small as possible. Life support systems, emergancy patching and repressurisation kits, and extended supplies would be stored in the roof space. Normal access to the pod would be through a hatch in the floor, leading down a ladder fixed to the forward landing gear. To exit the pod in an emergancy, the main cockpit glass could be blown out by detcord or small arms fire. The pod itself could not survive atmospheric braking, but would come equipped with parachutes and small thrusters to ensure a safe landing if ejection occurs in atmosphere.   As for the weapons, I would do away with the proprietary nose guns altogether. I would also try to recess the main gun as much as possible, to reduce the exposure to fire. To give a higher forward firepower, I would add a gun to the bottom side of each nacelle. For missiles, I would have interchangable racks stored in the volume between the life pod and the nacelles. This covers my secondary aim, as the much wider distribution of the weapons reduces the chance of a one-shot disarm. My personal opinion (and this is where many will differ) is that internal missile bays should be limited in their refit options. This leads my on to my final aim, the retention of versatility.   I have imagined four role configurations for this Vanguard: The Fighter, the E-War Platform, the Fighter-Bomber, and the Scout. The differences between them would only be the standard loadouts, making one frame reconfigurable for multiple tasks. As the standard model, the Fighter would have a gimballed S4 ballistic repeater in the nose (with no spin-up time), a gimballed S3 energy repeater under each nacelle, and would have it's missile bays configured to hold many S2 and S3 missiles. The E-War Platform would have a fixed S5 distortion cannon in the nose, a gimballed S3 energy repeater on each nacelle, and would replace 1/2 the S2 missiles with dataspike missiles. Finally it would replace the S3 missiles with an enhanced computer package, to work in tandem with the dataspike missiles. The Fighter-Bomber would have a fixed S5 ballistic cannon in the nose, a fixed S4 ballistic cannon on each nacelle, and would replace all of the missiles with four S6 torpedoes The Scout would have a gimballed S4 energy repeater in the nose, a gimballed S3 energy repeater on each nacelle, and would replace the S3 missiles of the Fighter with an enhanced sensor package. All of the variants would carry two S3 energy repeaters in the turret by default.   Thanks to Aniron from Spectrum for mentioning that the nacelle weapons should be underneath instead of on top, to aid access. The Vanguard may have to operate from distant FARPs, where advanced loading equipment would be unavailable.   I have used my barely existant MS paint skills to provide a basic diagram to aid this description. All of the volumes are vague, and may be adjusted somewhat to make the design feasible. The red outline indicates the ejection pod and cockpit, and the ladder on the landing gear. The red dashes indicate the storage space above the ceiling above the ejection pod. The orange areas indicate the landing gear. The yellow areas indicate the unmanned turret position. The green areas indicate the volume to be filled with other internal systems - e.g. fuel tanks and power plants. The blue areas indicate the modular missile bays. The purple areas indicate the new weapon positions.


    • By D0wNF411
      Hi 
      So, does anyone know the symbology or meaning behind the number 362 on Aegis Dynamic Ships?
      I have noticed it painted on the Sabre Raven and the Gladius (pictures attached)
      Please let me know if you know what it is in reference to.
      Thanks
       


×