Crusader Hecules Starlifter

[VoA 12,058]

Another Important thread most haven't thought about.... LINK

Hercules Titan Transporter

With the Hercules being able to transport 10 cyclones i started tinking of that other vehicle that was in R&D.

The Titan Combat suit.

The Hercules Heavy Infantry Transport is born.

The Titans could be a vehicle like the Tonk with Guns that cant be changed.

Titans can then be made in diffrent category:

Civilian/utility

Combat

Explorer/Dangerous atmospheres.

 

The Herc cargo space is high enough and it has 2 ramps to easely deploy the Titan suits.

[Devil Khan 560]

Those cyclone are in impossible places. With the current design.

[GalYurr 193]

I've got the A2 & C2 atm (both extreme ends of the scale).  Can always use the A2 for combat zone cargo/1 tank drops if needed (it still has almost 6x the cargo space of a Hammerhead), and I want the C2 for normal cargo anyway, so it will stay in safer areas where the larger hold will bring in more profit.

[Caldon 455]

That's what this thing reminded me of. I like it a bit more because of it.

[Fleischwolf 77]

On 5/13/2018 at 6:23 PM, VoA said:

I just want to call attention to others that our strategy to use our Hornets, Tali's (of which I also have),  etc.... to "participate" won't likely be that effective on ground based assaults as you think...

 

...Also - don't you think that spaced based bombers and fighters will be far less effective in planetary assaults than what most people currently think?    I see CIG coming out with planetary fighters now.... (that will be far superior than Hornets, Sabers, etc....) when fighting in atmosphere and vs ground targets.

I think the Retaliator is going to get its own set of gravity bombs by the time these mechanics are in the game. Also, people seem to forget the the Tali can get the dropship module (that can apparently carry / charge Titan armor?) which will make it very versatile for planetary assaults. 

Like, if you want the A2 gameplay at a cheaper price point, a Tali with one dropship module and one bomb bay should provide something similar. I hope that 12 human infantry players (the capacity of the Tali) have the tools to be able to knock out tanks if they work together. 

I don't think there will be dedicated in-atmosphere fighters. They would be greatly outperformed by space ships. Just being able to fly into orbit to disengage would be too strong and difficult to balance. Fighters are going to be needed to win the air before a ground assault can even begin. 

[VoA 12,058]

9 hours ago, Fleischwolf said:

I think the Retaliator is going to get its own set of gravity bombs by the time these mechanics are in the game. Also, people seem to forget the the Tali can get the dropship module (that can apparently carry / charge Titan armor?) which will make it very versatile for planetary assaults. 

Last evening we were just discussing the Tali and its effectiveness planet-side in our Blood Moon Unit meeting last evening.   The Tali is one of the ships that I have vowed to CCU for a long time (really don't like the corridors).... and came really close when the Eclipse came out.   It could happen where the Tali gets its own gravity bombs (which should be more powerful than torpedoes) - but not too sure about that since it is meant to be a long range space bomber.   I actually had the drop ship module with my Tali for awhile (ended up melting it -but I can un-melt it) which does make it effective in planetary assaults but the biggest problem it has vs the Hercules is that many of the Turrets are on the top of the ship - making them unless in planetary fights other than defending vs sky-bound attackers (in atmosphere you can't really flight it effectively upside down with the VTOLs and bomb bays on the Bottom - a huge plus for the A2 over the Tali vs planet-side targets).   While I think a Caterpillar can hold Titan Armor - it is unlikely the Tali will have the head room.

9 hours ago, Fleischwolf said:

I don't think there will be dedicated in-atmosphere fighters. They would be greatly outperformed by space ships. Just being able to fly into orbit to disengage would be too strong and difficult to balance. Fighters are going to be needed to win the air before a ground assault can even begin. 

Dedicated in-atmosphere fighters aren't necessarily completely restricted from not going into orbit or even flying a short hop to a moon from a planet (why not?).   It just means that they will be far more maneuverable in atmosphere (and even under-water combat since fluid dynamics apply under water as well as in atmosphere)........ so ships designed to fly in atmosphere's will have great advantages to space based ships (for planet-side game-play).    This is a huge thing people are missing as an advantage for the Hercules.

[Reavern 3,363]

On 5/13/2018 at 6:23 PM, VoA said:

... I just want to call attention to others that our strategy to use our Hornets, Tali's (of which I also have),  etc.... to "participate" won't likely be that effective on ground based assaults as you think.   The Heavy space based Bombers will likely be able to level a building..... with the Polaris leveling an Outpost....... whereas.... the A2 will likely be able to level a mountain (and penetrate into underground bases) with the MOABs or create wide swaths of destruction with the Cluster Bomb option... (not just taking out one outpost - but multiple outposts that maybe in a village all at once).    Having all guns on the bottom of the ship will be huge as well for ground based assaults vs something like a Tali where most of the turrets are on top and will be useless vs ground units.   Not to mention the Hercules ships are made for atmosphere flight and will hover and maneuver much more efficiently compared to other ships its size or even many smaller ships.

4

I mentioned using Hornets and Sabres in an air superiority role, not a ground attack role. I suppose they'll be capable as attack fighters, but not as dedicated gunships. The A2 Herc and Redeemer are intended to provide close air support for ground assaults.

For the purpose of game balance, I hope the atmospheric flight mechanics of starfighters will be refined so they fly like conventional aircraft, requiring speed and lift to stay aloft. They'd still be capable of VTOL flight using their maneuvering thrusters, so they can use landing pads on planets with normal gravity. But their speed and agility in VTOL flight should be limited compared to gunships with dedicated VTOL thrusters. The starfighters would have to be flown like conventional jetfighters, engaging in strafing runs. The same for bombers, like the Tali and Eclipse; they'd fly on bombing runs and gravity drop bombs on targets instead of launching spatial torpedoes.

If CIG differentiates the atmospheric flight mechanics between fighters, bombers, gunships, and transports, it should make planet-based combat far more interesting. After all, if planets are where most of the valuables are located, it makes sense that they'd be contested. That will necessitate compelling ground and aerial combat mechanics.

On 5/13/2018 at 6:23 PM, VoA said:

I think this is a dangerous general statement that needs to be reevaluated..... "If I don't want to fly a Hercules"........ I said this about many ships I still have in my Hangar (that I virtually promised myself that these would be CCU'd / melted / or whatever)..... but I still have them for various reasons I didn't think of before.

 

I've bought virtually every ship that's been released in Star Citizen, and have melted the ones that I'm not interested in using -- at least for now. I can say with confidence that I'm not interested in flying the Genesis, Endeavor, Crucible, and C2/M2. I'll probably save up and buy an A2 in-game because it'll be fun to fly a heavy gunship/bomber. But I know that I won't enjoy ferrying cargo or vehicles to and from planets in a Hercules.

On 5/13/2018 at 6:23 PM, VoA said:

Also - don't you think that spaced based bombers and fighters will be far less effective in planetary assaults than what most people currently think?    I see CIG coming out with planetary fighters now.... (that will be far superior than Hornets, Sabers, etc....) when fighting in atmosphere and vs ground targets.

I agree that CIG might release dedicated atmospheric fighters in the future, but there shouldn't be too many. Many existing starfighters have wing surfaces that are suitable for atmospheric flight. For game balance, CIG could release a few "aerofighters" that are dedicated to aerial combat in an atmosphere and gravity, which would be superior in that role to starfighters.

[Devil Khan 560]

I agreed 100%

[VoA 12,058]

Love Teller's Vids 

 

[Kenenji 1]

I enjoyed trading in the alpha and was considering picking up a dedicated freighter for trading. I already own a Connie Andromeda, Super Hornet and Mustang Omega. I'm considering picking up the M2 or C2 as a dedicated armored freighter, is it worthwhile? Or should I stick to my Connie with a smaller cargo bay.

[Devil Khan 560]

I am thinking that M2 or the C2. except The M2 would reduce cargo space by a 1/3(-ish), but increase armour. However, I'm looking at the Shields and the C2 can use the same as the M2. despite the like of fire power (even the m2 doesn't really have it). However, never sending it in alone if you have too.

[Reavern 3,363]

35 minutes ago, Devil Khan said:

I am thinking that M2 or the C2. except The M2 would reduce cargo space by a 1/3(-ish), but increase armour. However, I'm looking at the Shields and the C2 can use the same as the M2. despite the like of fire power (even the m2 doesn't really have it). However, never sending it in alone if you have too.

I hope when CIG finally releases the Hercules Q&A they explain WHY the M2 has less cargo capacity than the C2. Why would the M2 have less physical space in its cargo hold just because it has stronger armour? Did the designers add armour plating to the interior of the cargo bay for some reason?!  It doesn't make any sense! (TBF it doesn't make sense why the Starfarer Gemini has less cargo capacity than the Starfarer either, for the same reason!)

The trade-off seems very game-y. Basically, if you want extra protection and firepower, you have to sacrifice cargo capacity. Apparently, it's not sufficient that the M2 costs more than C2, which is perfectly understandable because extra armour, guns, and other components should cost more money. No, the M2 has to lose some cargo capacity. It just does, because it's a game.

It's understandable that the A2 Hercules loses 40% of the C2's cargo capacity, as well as its aft cargo ramp because its aft bay is replaced by bomb bays. That makes sense.

Whereas the M2 is just dumb. I sorta understand why players would rather buy a C2 for the extra cargo capacity and simply try to avoid combat when deploying Tonks to a planet's surface.

CIG's design choices are baffling, especially from a sales perspective. If they left the M2's cargo capacity the same as the C2, and gave it extra armour and guns for a higher price, I think it would've sold a lot better. Players only interested in hauling cargo would've still bought the C2, but any players interested in supporting planetary assaults and hauling cargo would've bought the M2 instead. But since the M2 carries less than the C2, those players are deciding to buy the C2 and taking the risk they'll come under and fire and get shot down.

[Buckaroo 864]

21 hours ago, Reavern said:

I hope when CIG finally releases the Hercules Q&A they explain WHY the M2 has less cargo capacity than the C2. Why would the M2 have less physical space in its cargo hold just because it has stronger armour? Did the designers add armour plating to the interior of the cargo bay for some reason?!  It doesn't make any sense! (TBF it doesn't make sense why the Starfarer Gemini has less cargo capacity than the Starfarer either, for the same reason!)

Spoiler

 

The trade-off seems very game-y. Basically, if you want extra protection and firepower, you have to sacrifice cargo capacity. Apparently, it's not sufficient that the M2 costs more than C2, which is perfectly understandable because extra armour, guns, and other components should cost more money. No, the M2 has to lose some cargo capacity. It just does, because it's a game.

It's understandable that the A2 Hercules loses 40% of the C2's cargo capacity, as well as its aft cargo ramp because its aft bay is replaced by bomb bays. That makes sense.

Whereas the M2 is just dumb. I sorta understand why players would rather buy a C2 for the extra cargo capacity and simply try to avoid combat when deploying Tonks to a planet's surface.

CIG's design choices are baffling, especially from a sales perspective. If they left the M2's cargo capacity the same as the C2, and gave it extra armour and guns for a higher price, I think it would've sold a lot better. Players only interested in hauling cargo would've still bought the C2, but any players interested in supporting planetary assaults and hauling cargo would've bought the M2 instead. But since the M2 carries less than the C2, those players are deciding to buy the C2 and taking the risk they'll come under and fire and get shot down.

 

 

This is why I CCU'ed my Constellation to the C2 and not the M2--that and the ridiculous price increase of the M2 over the C2.  I wanted to maximize my cargo capacity for the money and use it for a dedicated cargo hauler, with the possibility of ground vehicle transportation if needed (but not likely).

That said, I believe the reason they decided to lower the cargo was specifically that cargo couldn't be stacked as high in the M2 compared to the C2.  Unfortunately, that's about as much information as we've been given.  I suspect it has to do with the extra remote turrets on the upper level we see in the holo-viewer (this may not exist in the C2 version), but until we know more about the interior from CIG this is just speculation. 

[Buckaroo 864]

On 5/19/2018 at 5:08 PM, Kenenji said:

I enjoyed trading in the alpha and was considering picking up a dedicated freighter for trading. I already own a Connie Andromeda, Super Hornet and Mustang Omega. I'm considering picking up the M2 or C2 as a dedicated armored freighter, is it worthwhile? Or should I stick to my Connie with a smaller cargo bay.

I created a CCU from my Constellation to the Hercules C2 because I specifically wanted to use it for cargo runs to make in-game money quicker.  However, I haven't applied that CCU yet as I--and likely many, many others--are waiting to hear more information in the Q&A posts hopefully coming soon.

[Fleischwolf 77]

I think the C2 would be worth it over the Connie if I had to make that choice. What is the price difference? 

EDIT: Wow, the Taurus is *only* $150. That makes the C2 more than twice as much. 

[Devil Khan 560]

One thing, the connie would have more fire power than the hercules. The herculas would have to have an escort in most systems. As it is a support ship.

[Buckaroo 864]

11 hours ago, Fleischwolf said:

I think the C2 would be worth it over the Connie if I had to make that choice. What is the price difference? 

EDIT: Wow, the Taurus is *only* $150. That makes the C2 more than twice as much. 

Speaking for using just store credit, the Hercules C2 is $210 more expensive than the Taurus, $135 more than the Andromeda, and $50 more than the Aquila, but it also has 6 times the cargo space (6.5 times the Andromeda/Aquila).  From the Taurus, it is a fairly large pledge amount if you're using new cash, but that's also a big jump in possible profit.

 

11 hours ago, Devil Khan said:

One thing, the connie would have more fire power than the hercules. The herculas would have to have an escort in most systems. As it is a support ship.

The Constellation will be able to better maneuver itself to avoid incoming attacks than the Hercules and if fully staffed have a couple turrets that can cover most of the ship, and for that reason I'm not sure the C2 would have better fire power.  You cannot always depend on having escorts, even if a C2 would be better suited having them.  One of the reasons I haven't applied my C2 CCU upgrade to my Aquila is because I don't want to be flying around a huge Starfarer right now.  The Constellation is much easier to fly around solo.

[Kenenji 1]

On 5/4/2018 at 1:05 PM, J. Coren said:

 

I'm not a fan of the Warbond insurance thing either. Sure, LTI doesn't matter much anymore, but it makes purchasing a several hundred dollar digital ship a little easier knowing you will never have to worry it so long as you buy it at concept.

If anything, this is going to make the Anniversary sale the go-to method to buy ships that have several years of insurance. Why buy the Hercules now when you can get it on the Exotic Ship Day during the sale come November and get 6 years insurance?

That's true, LTI isn't that big of a deal. I'm trying to figure out what would be the best go to freighter for solo or small screw. The C2 seems appealing with it's large cargo size, moderate defenses and planet landing capability. But the turret coverage looks pretty poor and would probably require more support than the Caterpillar. The Freelancer Max looks best for small runs but if I really want to move mass, I'm thinking the C2 is the most ideal at the moment.

[Buckaroo 864]

Hercules Starlifter Q&A is up... Nothing to note if there will be a second one or not.

Q&A: Crusader Hercules Starlifter

 

[ChiefWarrant 2,211]

So ........ Those of you that were waiting on the Q&A to make a decision.......... what do you think?  More specifically, what do you think of the C2?

A2 is out of the question for me. 

The M2 seems gimmicky.  Same dimensional volume, but less cargo for "armor."  After the Gemini supposedly having less cargo for "Armor" (yet has THE identical interior space as the Starfarer), I don't know HOW CIG will physically limit the M2s cargo capacity.

[Buckaroo 864]

Yeah, it seems the answers were very basic and didn't go really much into detail.  There's still a lot of unanswered questions about the Hercules that don't seem to be getting an answer anytime soon.

And no captains quarters...  My dreams destroyed! 

[Reavern 3,363]

On 5/25/2018 at 10:24 AM, Buckaroo said:

Yeah, it seems the answers were very basic and didn't go really much into detail.  There's still a lot of unanswered questions about the Hercules that don't seem to be getting an answer anytime soon.

And no captains quarters...  My dreams destroyed! 

I agree. The Q&A provided very little insight about the Hercules. I question CIG's methodology for selecting the questions because they don't seem to go by up-votes on Spectrum. The questions are also phrased too formally for how most posters write. I suspect that CIG writes the questions -- possibly inspired by Spectrum posts -- and the ship designers at CIG answer them. That explains why none of the questions addressed the SC community's concerns or criticisms about the Hercules. Instead, the questions were cherrypicked and sanitized of any controversy, more or less repeating the same information from the Concept Sale page and ship brochure -- which CIG assumes that we didn't read.

For example, a question that I had, along with many others, was HOW and WHY the M2's heavy armour reduces its cargo capacity? It doesn't make sense, unless the M2's cargo hold is up-armoured, for some reason.

The Starfarer Gemini had the same issue. Aside from a skin change and minor cosmetic differences on the engine intakes and thrusters, the Gemini is identical to the base Starfarer. There's no exterior evidence of thicker armour, the size and number of the external fuel pods are the same, and the volume of the interior cargo bay is the same. So why does the Gemini have less cargo/liquid capacity?

As I commented about the Hercules, the cargo reduction on the military model is very game-y. It's apparently not enough that the military model costs more, thereby justifying the increased weapons, components, and armour, it has to carry less cargo for "game balance".

This is poor game/ship design IMO. It's ironic that the early ships' designs were superior because their limitations were logical and based on their physical structure. For example, the Taurus model of the Constellation gained cargo capacity and sacrificed the swing-out wing missile hardpoints, because there wasn't room for them. The Freelancer MIS lost some cargo room because of its extra missiles and auto-loading system. The Retaliator substituted the bomb bays for cargo bays on the Base model, which is why it can't carry bombs/torpedoes. Those ship design changes made sense.

Whereas the ship design of the Hercules seems arbitrary and artificial. Perhaps more frustrating, CIG refuses to address our questions and criticisms of the design, choosing to ignore them and obliviously pretending like everything is fine. That dismissive attitude fosters resentment in the SC community that erodes our faith in the game and will ultimately cause more backers to close their wallets. CIG doesn't seem to get that, despite that there are innumerable comments on the concept sale pages and Spectrum threads wherein backers explicitly say that their wallets are closed and CIG isn't going to get another penny from them. Again, CIG isn't listening to us. 

[Lady Tyreanthil Kyranthia 52]

Well they lost me.

after spending a record amount last year, and buying every concept, I am not spending a cent on the Starlifter. 

Not one

after they burned me on 6 CCU’s from the Aquila (thereby invalidating them all ) , I am scaling down. With what they did for credits, I am incensed at them.

i stop at 13,000+ 

GG CIG

i hope more of my type follows my lead..

regards

jean

[DASKOMMTDAWEG 367]

Nope...☺

[ChiefWarrant 2,211]

2 hours ago, Reavern said:

For example, a question that I had, along with many others, was HOW and WHY the M2's heavy armour reduces its cargo capacity? It doesn't make sense, unless the M2's cargo hold is up-armoured, for some reason.

The Starfarer Gemini had the same issue. Aside from a skin change and minor cosmetic differences on the engine intakes and thrusters, the Gemini is identical to the base Starfarer. There's no exterior evidence of thicker armour, the size and number of the external fuel pods are the same, and the volume of the interior cargo bay is the same. So why does the Gemini have less cargo/liquid capacity?

As I commented about the Hercules, the cargo reduction on the military model is very game-y. It's apparently not enough that the military model costs more, thereby justifying the increased price, it has to carry less cargo for "game balance".

 

This is what I needed answered from the Q&A. 😒 oh well.

New game for me is to wait for the Eclipse price bump and then I can afford to CCU to the C2. My sole interest in this ship is solo internal cargo runner. I’ll pass on the “troop transport”  pew pew gameplay.