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.

Riley Egret

Aegis Eclispe

268 posts in this topic

AtV eclipse can only fire one torp at a time. Even VoA showed the rotating firing.

Don't get me wrong I love all three Tali, Gladi and Eclpi :D. They have very different roles from each other again it is the pricing which will go up afterwards to USD$330! It's a shame that the Polaris currently can't fit one on board. 

Just not sure if I'll CCU the gladiator to eclipse or purchase another.

VoA likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devil, I know only one can fit out the door at one time. But there's no reason they can't all be locked in the same nine seconds, and then fired in the total animation time shown of them indexing and firing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Devil Khan said:

AtV eclipse can only fire one torp at a time. Even VoA showed the rotating firing.

Don't get me wrong I love all three Tali, Gladi and Eclpi :D. They have very different roles from each other again it is the pricing which will go up afterwards to USD$330! It's a shame that the Polaris currently can't fit one on board. 

Just not sure if I'll CCU the gladiator to eclipse or purchase another.

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.

Aegis-Eclipse-L4-Piece-6-Space-Battle-00

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.

Danakar Endeel likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spindle mirrors existing tech. I figure it's in our bombers for a reason. Only one door for instance. A rotating mass inside is easier to deal with than multiple openings which need special treatment to maintain low reflectivity and which protrude into the airflow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, GeraldEvans said:

The spindle mirrors existing tech. I figure it's in our bombers for a reason. Only one door for instance. A rotating mass inside is easier to deal with than multiple openings which need special treatment to maintain low reflectivity and which protrude into the airflow.

True but have you seen how fast those rotate to drop ordinance? I have and their mechanics move at maybe 1/10 the speed that the the actual tech can move in real life. this neeeds to be sped up a lot and allow a multi lock so you can drop all three within a second or two or this is gonna be pathetic i think. 

GeraldEvans and Danakar Endeel like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True but have you seen how fast those rotate to drop ordinance? I have and their mechanics move at maybe 1/10 the speed that the the actual tech can move in real life. this neeeds to be sped up a lot and allow a multi lock so you can drop all three within a second or two or this is gonna be pathetic i think. 

Time to start the campaign. Perhaps with a comparison video of the real thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, GeraldEvans said:

The spindle mirrors existing tech. I figure it's in our bombers for a reason. Only one door for instance. A rotating mass inside is easier to deal with than multiple openings which need special treatment to maintain low reflectivity and which protrude into the airflow.

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:

601b881a912b365fcd7637070c239b57.jpg

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:

1387636.jpg

... and F-35 Lightning II:

wpid-img_51394105250439.jpeg

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.

Danakar Endeel likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reavern said:

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:

601b881a912b365fcd7637070c239b57.jpg

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:

1387636.jpg

... and F-35 Lightning II:

wpid-img_51394105250439.jpeg

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 rack 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.

The b-52 uses the spindle and only for cruise missiles, thats the problem in finding the video of running through a function check on the spindle, not very often they drop that many at once, but they can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/

"Each weapons bay is equipped with a rotary launcher and two bomb-rack assemblies. In tests, the B-2 successfully released B-61 and B-83 nuclear and mk84 conventional bombs from the rotary rocket launcher, and mk82 and CBU-87 conventional weapons from the bomb racks."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, GeraldEvans said:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/

"Each weapons bay is equipped with a rotary launcher and two bomb-rack assemblies. In tests, the B-2 successfully released B-61 and B-83 nuclear and mk84 conventional bombs from the rotary rocket launcher, and mk82 and CBU-87 conventional weapons from the bomb racks."

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:

air-force-weapons-loaders-maneuver-a-com

Or it could be loaded with A LOT MORE bombs in a simple rack system, pictured here:

090810-F-1234O-005.jpg

be1c4284799a8bdb65e45ab70d58f55b.jpg

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.

Danakar Endeel likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally get your point. But again, larger doors, etc. Plus rule of cool. Since we're only working with precision weapons it's safe to assume that a gravity rack isn't appropriate. So as long as they accelerate the rotary launcher to manage one per second, where's the real harm? Some space sure, but there's wasted space everywhere. Look at the Starfarer. A void the size of the stairwell on the port side. Empty wasted space. Eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that they use the spindle launcher intentionally to waste space. If CIG really wanted, they could probably cram at least 5 torpedoes in there, the only reason they don't is because then they have a Retaliator that is smaller, faster and stealthier. It would make the actual Retaliator almost pointless, and since giving the Retaliator a missile carrying system that doesn't suck is out of the question, this was their only option.

I obviously don't have proof, this is just what I suspect. It's just such a waste that they choose to always go the weird route to satisfy the rule of cool and try to keep game balance. The Retaliator could, for instance, hold twice (or more!) Torpedoes in it's front bay, keeping the rear bay free for spare torpedoes. This would make the Retaliator a terrifyingly effective ship. Now it's a slow, ponderous giant with 2 huge, useless spindles that take up the same space as at least 6 torps. 

 

GeraldEvans likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be a full spindle unit as the amount of cross section is very low. Plus the spindle has to be reload every time. However, it is a mockup on possible weapon racks/mounting.

@Caldon The Tali has more speed than most other craft. It uses speed rather that shields

The Tali uses speed, while the eclipse uses stealth and the Gladiator uses ... well It's good at a lot of things, but not great at any one.  Still surprised though that Size 9 Torps fit in the eclipse. Tbh, the tali bomb bays are wasted space really, sure they look good but still if you were designing it  you'd try to fit as many  torps with its weight taken in to account as well. After KS the Tali sounded lethal ship and it was. After years, now it is anti-torp(missile) is effective and the torps are prone to weapons fire from any ship. However, the real thing is  at the moment the don't do as much against large ships. 

To me it would seem in-effective against any large ship with very vulnerable torps.

I wonder do torps come with stealth as an option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2017 at 3:32 AM, Caldon said:

I think that they use the spindle launcher intentionally to waste space. If CIG really wanted, they could probably cram at least 5 torpedoes in there, the only reason they don't is because then they have a Retaliator that is smaller, faster and stealthier. It would make the actual Retaliator almost pointless, and since giving the Retaliator a missile carrying system that doesn't suck is out of the question, this was their only option.

I obviously don't have proof, this is just what I suspect. It's just such a waste that they choose to always go the weird route to satisfy the rule of cool and try to keep game balance. The Retaliator could, for instance, hold twice (or more!) Torpedoes in it's front bay, keeping the rear bay free for spare torpedoes. This would make the Retaliator a terrifyingly effective ship. Now it's a slow, ponderous giant with 2 huge, useless spindles that take up the same space as at least 6 torps. 

 

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:

Quote

This is a good opportunity to mention that we are well aware of many in the community’s issues with the Retaliator (capacity, turret behavior, layouts, etc) and whilst we can’t commit to changes presently in the short term, it is on our radar and we’ll be reviewing at some point in the future.

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.

On 5/27/2017 at 4:56 AM, Devil Khan said:

It can't be a full spindle unit as the amount of cross section is very low. Plus the spindle has to be reload every time. However, it is a mockup on possible weapon racks/mounting.

@Caldon The Tali has more speed than most other craft. It uses speed rather that shields

The Tali uses speed, while the eclipse uses stealth and the Gladiator uses ... well It's good at a lot of things, but not great at any one.  Still surprised though that Size 9 Torps fit in the eclipse. Tbh, the tali bomb bays are wasted space really, sure they look good but still if you were designing it  you'd try to fit as many  torps with its weight taken in to account as well. After KS the Tali sounded lethal ship and it was. After years, now it is anti-torp(missile) is effective and the torps are prone to weapons fire from any ship. However, the real thing is  at the moment the don't do as much against large ships. 

To me it would seem in-effective against any large ship with very vulnerable torps.

I wonder do torps come with stealth as an option?

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. ;)

Danakar Endeel likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Work is progressing smoothly on the Eclipse with current focus on the moving areas of the ship, specifically the torpedo bay, entry ladder, cockpit canopy and flight mode variations. The cockpit was finished and the surrounding area is in the process of being resolved. Attention has been given to the torpedo bay due to the size and space it occupies within the ship.

 

Eclipse_03.png

 

Eclipse_02.png

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 Weehamster
      Hi everyone /
      I think it's about time that I share my collection of albums that I use for The Base chat that I've had for a while now
      I only have ships/vehicles that are either from lore, concept, development or being re-worked, not for any that are flyable/finished and I constantly add more to the albums. Enjoy.
      Aopoa (Xi'An) | "Capital" | Nox | "Oracle" | "Transport" | Volper |
      Aegis | Eclipse | Idris | Javelin | Reclaimer | Redeemer | Retaliator (Modules) | Vanguard (Variants): Harbinger - Sentinel |
      Anvil | A4A Hurricane | Carrack | Crucible | F7A Hornet Mk II | F8 Lightning | Pisces | Terrapin |
      BIRC (Banu) | Defender | Merchantman |
      Crusader | Genesis Starliner |
      Drake | Cutlass (Re-Work): Black - Blue - Red | Dragonfly |
      Esperia | "Blade" | Prowler |
      Kruger | P-72 Archimedes |
      MISC | Endeavor | Freelancer (Variants): DUR - MAX - MIS | Hull: A - B - C - D - E | Prospector | Razor | Reliant (Variants): Mako - Sen - Tana |
      Origin | 300 (Re-Work): 300i - 315p - 325a - 350r | 600i | 890 Jump  | X1 |
      RSI | Aurora (Re-Work) | Bengal | Constellation: Aquila - Phoenix - Taurus | Orion | Pegasus | Polaris  | Ursa | Zeus |
      RSI/Aegis | Retribution |
      Tumbril | Cyclone |
      Vanduul | "Cleaver" | "Driller" | "Harvester" | "Hunter" | "Kingship" | "Mauler" | "Stinger" | "Void" |
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Ship Components | Coolers | Gun's | Missiles / Torpedoes | Quantum Drives |
      -------------------------------------------- BONUS --------------------------------------------
      Characters | Banu | Human | Tevarin | Vanduul | Xi'An | Armor, Uniforms & Clothing | Wildlife |
      First Person Components | mobiGlas | Tools / Equipment | Weapons |
      Places  | Planetary Environments / Bases | Shubin | Star Systems Concepts | Terra | Truck-stop / Space Stations |
      Stanton | 1 (Hurston) | 1a (Ariel) | 1b (Aberdeen) | 1c (Magoa) | 1d (Ita) |
                    | 2 (Crusader) | 2a (Celin) | 2b (Daymar) | 2c (Yela) |
                    | AB (Arron Halo) | * (Delamar) |
                    | 3 (ArcCorp) | 3a (Lyria) | 3b (Wala) |
                    | 4 (Microtech) | 4a (Calliope) | 4b (Clio) | 4c (Euterpe) |        
      Other | Drones / Probes | Logos | Racing | Sataball | Other Vanduul Art | UI |
    • By VoA
      Looking forward to flying my favorite Bomber - the Aegis Harbinger (or some may have it as a Vanguard BUK option).   Yes there are many options for Bombers now (and yes I have a Javelin, Polaris, and Retaliator bombers as well) - but for now the Harbinger (for me at least) is in a sweet spot for a Bomber with its Rail Gun, Rocket Launcher Turret, extra armor vs the standard Vanguard, the ability to BUK to a Sentinel, etc....   We know that the Vanguard hasn't lived up to expectations - and CIG knows this.... but you should never focus on "current" performance with a ship this early in Alpha (things will change - ships get buffed and nerf'd all the time).
      Are you excited about flying the Harbinger (looks like maybe in August per schedule quoted below)? - I am 
       
       
    • By DirtDiverTwo9
      So I had a conversation with my wallet when the new Eclipse dropped.....
        Me~"hey wallet have you seen the new Eclipse?"
      Wallet~"yes Nathan, no you can't afford it."          
      Me~"Fuck you don't tell me how to live my life!"  

      ..... I showed my wallet who's boss!!! I'm now the proud owner of a brand spanking new Warbond Eclipse  
      Also, awesome news! buying this ship just put me over Concierge so yaaayyyy !!!
      the struggle is real when you actually go... hmmm down payment on a house or completionist pack........

    • By Alanegra
      Hello.
      I want to purchase a fighter starship with LTI. Please, affordable offers only :).
      I will pay with PayPal.
      If you are interested, please PM me.
      All the best.
       
    • By Gustav.Henrik
      We have a totally new paradigm where CIG is selling capital ships like never before. At the Anniversary sale 2016 an unprecedented amount of Idris was offered: 5 batches of 200 ships in each batch for a total of 1000 Capital ships in a single sale. The effect was grave, CIG killed off the demand for this previously rare ship and more than half of the ships remained unsold at the 26th of November -a week after the start of the sale. CIG now decided it was a bad idea to officially state how much they inflate the numbers of capital ships because that killed off the demand. The solution they came up with was to sell 100 Javelins in a stealth batch at the announcement of the final Grand Finale on the 26th November at 1PM PST, this was followed by yet another stealth Javelin batch of 100, none of which is officially mentioned in clear numbers as to not kill off the demand by the enormous volume dilution that these sales represent. It is also interesting to note that of the 450 Javelins that was sold in one week 300 were offered for Cash Only, so this is a clear cash-grab move. 
      This represents a new paradigm in that CIG no longer cares about capital ship rarity, they care only about deceiving backers by not officially stating they they sell 100's and hundreds more ships than the sale description states as to not kill the demand and make the maximum amount on new fresh cash. The Idris and Javelin are no longer rare and powerful capital ships that needs to be kept at a low number. The only rarity concern CIG has is to keep demand high to maximize cash revenue, thus they have started selling capital ships in Stealth Batches that are totally unannounced and for Cash Only.
      The overselling of capital ships had grave implications. Not only do we now have over twice as many Javelins as before but these ships were available for hours and hours without selling out, a sign that the demand is sated and probably would they have sold out faster CIG would have offered more, as many as the market can bare for mazimum amount of New Cash.
      I can't imagine the completionist 17500$ Backer that probably justified his pledge level by getting a Javelin that previously was a ship only available in 1-10 sec sales out of a year being happy about that instead of paying 17500 USD before, you could have just taken your time and comfortably within a total of over 24 HRS of javelin availability spent 2700$ for the same ship. 
      What we can abstract from CIG's new marketing tactics is:
      CIG is not anymore concerned with limiting capital ships for game balance reasons, they are only concerned in keeping demand high.
      CIG knows rarity is a driving factor for capital ship demand
      CIG wants to keep the true javelin numbers a secret/the official numbers low to not lower demand
      CIG peculiarly enough decided to go through with the unanounced 100 Cash Only javelin batch on 1PM PST 26th november at a time where only 50% of Idris had sold out, almost to the dollar making up for the projected loss of profit from the Cash Only Idrises.
      Using this wonderful forum as a platform I'm going to go on record and make a prediction about where CIG marketing is heading with their capital ship sales going forward.
      Based on CIG's clear will to sell javelins for cash only in unannounced not officially acknowleadged large volume batches I predict the following:
      A Holiday Livestream 2016 sale of unannounced Cash only javelins of up to three batches of 100 each adjusted after demand with a possible addition of 50 javelins Store Credit allowed to not upset previous backers too much. The secret sale would be launched at the commensation of the Holiday Livestream at a time with maximum site traffic for maximu sale speed/sales oppurtinity. The sales will not be officially acknowleadged and no numbers of batches of numbers of ships in each batch will be mentioned to keep the image of javelin being a rare ship alive. The goal is to sell as many javelins for cash only as the market can bare.
      So the prediction is we will se another 350 Javelins sold for a total of 700 javelins sold in 2016.
      What does this new marketing tactic mean for Capital Ship numbers on launch of the PU?
      2012 100 Idris-M sold
      2013 150 Idris-P sold
      2014 200 Idris-P sold in 4 batches of 50
      2015 Introduction of the 2500$ Idris-P containing Armada pack (unknown amount sold commonly predicted thousands) and 100 Idris-P sold
      2016 1000 Idris-P sold in 5 batches of 200
      So almost a Tenfold increase of the amount sold in previous years in 2016. Extrapolating the new annual sales volumes and using the Roadmap laid out by CR (which is aleady heavily delayed) we are looking at a 2020 PU release at the earliest which gives us 1000 more Idris in 2017, 1000 more Idris in 2018, 1000 more Idris in 2019, and a possible 1000 more Idris in 2020.
      Total number of Idris at PU release with current sales volumes= 4550 to 5550 plus an unknown amount of Armada packages for a total of a conservative 6000+ estimate. These are not numbers that support a 1250$ price, these ships wil e so common that everyone will aim for one and thus the acquisition time will have to be lowered accordingly and thus the USD convert price from CIG's own UEC ingame store will be much lower than the 1250$ we paid.
      2014 200 Javelin sold in 4 batches of 50
      2015 200 Javelin sold in 4 batches of 50 (officially excused by a growing number of accounts allowing more to be sold though Turbulent has claimed the real backer numbers when we had 1,5 million accounts was 500 000 persons with 3 accounts each)
      2016 250 Javelins sold officially 100 javelins sold off the record, And a prediction of 350 more sold in the anniversary sale
      Thus in 2020 at PU launch (according to the roadmap laid out in citizencon 2016 this will be the earliest launch date) and taking the new yearly sales volumes into account we will have
      400 + 350 + 350 2017 + 350 2018 + 350 2019 = 1550 at the lowest plus the additional completionist owners and my prediciton: 400 + 700 + 700 2017 + 700 2018 + 700 2019 + 700 2020 = 3900 Javelins at PU launch.