Auto Settings for Special Weapons

posted on July 8th, 2009, 12:27 am

Can't we agree to not feed the trolls? 

Especially those who say bs like this:

and send them to alah.........notice how i didnt capitilize ala cause islam is a crap religion.

posted on July 8th, 2009, 12:49 am

All ive got to say is The abrahms M1-A2 would be a more effective urban combat vehicle if our Polititians would untie our soilders hands....take a hint from the isralies..drive the frigin tank through the buildings not down the street!!! Man I wish a had a tank!! ...One person views something as BS another would view the same thing as GOSPEL....dont judge people or sumthing along those lines.....

posted on July 8th, 2009, 2:06 am

Hopefully I wasn't included in the troll comment Penumbra

Back to the offtopic topic of course, all I have to say is pretty much everything you said I quite disagree with and I don't see any logic behind the statements. An AEGIS is built for a specific mission. So are all the other battlegroup members. They excell at their given tasks and that is why they are part of the battlegroup.

Here's your armament for a Nimitz-class.
Armament: 16–24 × Sea Sparrow or NATO Sea Sparrow missiles
3 or 4 × Phalanx CIWSs or RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles

I see no mention of anti-submarine mines or anti-ship missles: all of the weapon systems on a Nimitz are for relatively close in combat systems against aircraft.

On the contrary, it is the cruisers, destroyers, and attack submarines that carry these weapons and deploy them. The aircraft carrier is solely designed to be a floating base that launches and takes aircraft of all sorts. The rest of the ships protect this behemoth from Air and Sea as well as launch artillerycruise missles etc. So once again, your points are moot and honestly I don't even know where you are coming up with these things.

[nathanj]

posted on July 8th, 2009, 3:40 am

Last edited by nathanj on July 8th, 2009, 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

all navy ships have radar ,  all the big ones have sonar they can tow and sub hunting ablilities including the  ACCs,  they use subhunting helis.   

i guess were just not going to agree on ship US navy ships capabilities.    back to star trek universe.

a sensor blackout system would be invaluable in combat and if it fits on the canaveral it will definitely fit on a sovereign.  imagine the starfleet engineers looking at upgrading a sovereign and seeing things like instant shield regen or an ability increase firing rate or decrease enemy accuracy.  now imagin those engineers saying........NAH!  why bother.  our little canaverals and akiras already have this stuff whats the point of adding it onto a big expensive cruiser, theyll never need it.  and dont get me started on why all starfleet vessels dont have that awesome repair beam.  if all the ships had it starfleet would be invincible.

i just refuse to believe that starfleet having some of the best engineers known would be that naive and stupid.

and i apoligize for my ealier statement about islam.   not correct for this forum.

@ryderstorm  i agree completely.  they only recently relaxed the stupid policy of making sure your target fires first bullshit.   im gonna quess but if some guy is on a roof pointing a rifle at your direction, im pretty sure hes not bird watching.   although to be honest from what i heard from people coming back noone really did anything anyways if you did shoot first.  you would only get in trouble if it turned out to be a civilian or someone who was on your side.  its kinda nice to hear that the military knows which rules to adhere to and which ones are stupid.  i guess the jarheads have something up there afterall.   :lol:

posted on July 8th, 2009, 1:24 pm

No we won't agree, seeing as you still refuse to acknowledge the facts (for instance, where on earth did you find that an aircraft carrier can launch cruise missiles). However, you can believe what you wish to about redundancy and useless ships--it won't change the facts.

You said yourself that you didn't want to argue about the STU. I'm sure you can go ahead and propose to all the star trek factions (*cough movie/show directors/scientific advisors) that they only build one enormous ship and equip it with all the goodies in the world. Clearly that makes economic and military sense. I mean, why spread out the weapons on various ships so that if one is destroyed, the battle isn't lost. Of course we should go the evil comic book villain route and put all our weapons on one vessel. Heck, lets go one further and put a self-destruct button on it too. The reason I brought up real-world ships is because that is what ST is based on. A cheap Canaveral might be specially designed to use and carry out the Sensor Blackout, so it is a relatively one purpose ship. Equipping a Sovereign with one would hike up the price further and mean that the warp core would have ot be enlarged, thereby ensuring that not only do you only have a handful of ships, but you have a handful of ships that are large juicy targets that are forced to become generalists... jack of all trades, master of none. And of course, since this is an RTS, since no amount of reason or facts will change your mind I must mention that your ideas would make any RTS worthless. You said yourself that you don't micromanage, you prefer setting your ships on search and destroy, and you prefer to eat and watch television more than play--so in all reality, you shouldn't even be commenting on this game if you have no real interest in playing it and making it better.

posted on July 8th, 2009, 3:10 pm

i was mistaken about the cruise missiles and ill admit that.

however you said that the ACC can only do close in cover.  that is false.  you also said that a humvee is better in urban combat than an abrams....that is incorrect.  talk to anyone in the military.  the humvee is a piece of shit that is difficult to maintain and doesnt provide protection against larger arms and explosive rounds.  which is why BAE is replacing it with a new possible hybrid.

ACC have electronic warfare.  can strike at targets hundreds of miles away, hunt for subs, radar and so on.  youve been playing way to many RTS if you think  that the real world military is the same as a video game.  as soon as sonar contact is detected several thing happen.  cruisers etc. start doing their thing, sonar bouys, towing sonar lines etc.  ACC may or may not launch helies to hunt subs down and the fleets own subs go on the hunt.  all the ships in the group are hunting for a sub.  if there is an inland target either the ACC will launch an aircraft to get it or a cruiser or destroyer might launch a cruise missile or both of them will launch at the same time.  these ships are highly versatile and are designed on purpose to have overlapping capabilities.  as an avid watcher of the history channel an admiral or someother high rank said that there is literally no mission that an ACC cant handle.  i think ill take his word over yours.

as for the RTS aspect i already stated that i understand why ingame they have specific things for specific ships.  why you keep beating that dead horse i dont know why.

why starfleet bothered to add shields to all of their ships.  why bother adding phasers to all of them.  why bother with transporters and long range scanners on all the ships.  these technologies are standard on all starfleet vessels for a reason.  they make sense.  sensor blackout and all the other techs are clearly not brand new and unique cause every single canaveral and ever single remore has them.

also you assumption that they would have to increase the warpcore is a bit flawed.  why would they have to do that?  the only time you using the max of your warpcore is  when youre at maximum warp, or if you using everylast bit of power to keep the shields up against a couple of warbirds.  the sensor blackout for example would pretty much only be used in combat which doenst happen often at max warpspeeds.  same with all the other specials.  its not like the sensor blackout is on all the time.

as for cost.......what.  adding an important defense mechanism to a cheap small short range ship makes more sense than to a larger more expensive vessel with longer range and more likely to engage in combat.   

by the way if your going to use shows as a reference which i still think is a mistake,  when is the last time you saw a large ship like a galaxy or nebula or whatnot zooming around with a oberth or nova class in tow.  (or whatever the shows equivalent to a canaveral is).

as far as commenting on the game i said early on why i understood things were seperated in the game this has been a discussion about why starfleet would or would not put these systems on all of their main battle cruisers.

i think this discussion has run its course, we are not going to agree and i dont want it to get into a bitter hate fest.  lets just agree to disagree.   

posted on July 8th, 2009, 3:48 pm

If this discussion has run its course, why do you insist on putting the statement at the end of your argument, rather than at the beginning? I mean, your very first statement in this thread was offtopic to begin with --it was never about discussing disabling all special weapons, it was about choosing which special weapons can be turned off for the player so the auto cast feature works better. Not to mention your gripes about "straight up firefights" (isn't a quantum torpedo or disrupter magical too?).

ACC have electronic warfare.  can strike at targets hundreds of miles away, hunt for subs, radar and so on.  youve been playing way to many RTS if you think  that the real world military is the same as a video game.  as soon as sonar contact is detected several thing happen.  cruisers etc. start doing their thing, sonar bouys, towing sonar lines etc.  ACC may or may not launch helies to hunt subs down and the fleets own subs go on the hunt.  all the ships in the group are hunting for a sub.  if there is an inland target either the ACC will launch an aircraft to get it or a cruiser or destroyer might launch a cruise missile or both of them will launch at the same time.  these ships are highly versatile and are designed on purpose to have overlapping capabilities.  as an avid watcher of the history channel an admiral or someother high rank said that there is literally no mission that an ACC cant handle.  i think ill take his word over yours.

I think you just proved my point. As for your statment about "close in cover," feel free to read the weapons list again for the aircraft carrier. Disregarding the aircraft (which are NOT the aircraft carrier as you keep on trying to tell me, and so again prove that you need more than one unit) the aircraft carrier does not have weapons designed for engagement: it relies on the other vessels for protection--whether it be planes, helicopters (which cannot subhunt nearly as efficiently as a submarine or destroyer) or other navy vessels. "as an avid watcher of the history channel an admiral or someother high rank said that there is literally no mission that an ACC cant handle": I'm sure you either misquoted or misunderstood or gave into the hubris of the speaker, because there are plenty of missions an aircraft carrier definitely cannot handle (but I guess you don't--or the self assured admiral--consider the ground forces important, or for that matter the Air force)

the humvee is a piece of shit that is difficult to maintain and doesnt provide protection against larger arms and explosive rounds.

Indeed it is bad, but an Abrahms cannot cross many roads due to weight concerns, cannot bring its main gun to bear, cannot have the machine gun mount occupied safely (unless equipped with the same shields that the Humvee uses). As I said before, they each have their specialities, and there are always replacements being made (afterall, look what version of the Abrahms is being used right now). The Humvee, or the equivalent, will always be better at urban warfare than a tank. Or do you need to ask yourself why so many humvees are in city duty? For that matter, why is the Humvee being replaced with a similar better armed model if the Abrahms does the Humvee's job so much better.

That is all I have to say, and if you wish to carry this discussion on you can create a new thread.

posted on July 8th, 2009, 4:44 pm

and yet again you never answered a single question about star trek ships.   

over.

posted on July 8th, 2009, 5:04 pm

Well, since you want the last word in (and since I obviously can't resist), I guess I'll leave you this to respond to:

by the way if your going to use shows as a reference which i still think is a mistake,  when is the last time you saw a large ship like a galaxy or nebula or whatnot zooming around with a oberth or nova class in tow

DS9 clearly shows multiple ship classes together engaging targets differently and doing different tasks based on the vessel type.

and yet again you never answered a single question about star trek ships.

...I guess that could do with the slight fact that Star Trek is... this might come as a surprise to you...NOT REAL. You yourself stated that you did not want to argue about one iota of the shows (yet you are trying to do so again), but all we know about of Star Trek ships are from the shows and movies (which surprisingly are based on reality--which is easily argued about), and we quite clearly see different classes being used for different purposes in Starfleet (hey, we even have ship that is a hospital vessel) or one that is an anti-Borg battleship  *cough* Defiant *cough* as well as the other factions (cavalry charge with cloaked B'rels anybody?). However, if you want to argue that all the Dominion, for example, used during the war was the Dreadnought because it was the biggest baddest ship with all the goodies--go right ahead.