I have a full time job as well. I just post at lunch or when I get home. We all work. I also resent you saying my posts are vicious. I have never attacked you personally. You have called me either directly or by assocation a troll and a termite. So get some perspective on what you are saying

The weapons in Star Trek are not dedicated AA weapons was my point. Your own post states "equivilent". The reason they don't have it is that phasers are highly accurate. I understand this. Go back before TOS to Enterprise and compare those weapons to what a Soverign fields and then discuss. It would also be interesting to look at what is classified as SC in Star Trek. Most capital ships could never do the stuff the Defiant does. So what would it be classified as in WWII (since we keep coming back to it???)

Also - what rule has Carbon violated? I see a claim of it yet cannot see any supporting evidence to allow me to see if your claim has foundation. Do not take this as support for him in anyway, nor as anything against you. I just want to know what he has done that you feel violates the T&C and possibly led you to report him (I am assuming this from the "Appropriate action will be taken" bit, sense you lack any authority, so you can only get this outcome from a mod.

Most of Credit's reasoning in his original post don't seem, really to have any baring on the matter.  To try and draw parellel's between other science fiction genre's and World War II is just a tad bit silly.  Why does SINS need to "conform" to these type of supposed rules of ship design? They don't even take a lot of real science into account (e.g. why is there sound in space, and ships in deep space (not near a gravity well) wouldn't bank when they move) And also it needs to be taken into consideration that those are not interactive games that require a high degree of balancing.

So any comparison or use of another SciFi show or movie is completely and utter invalid and really quite odd and non-sensical.

It's like saying that apples and oranges are both fruit so therefore they should taste the same.

And you're agrument that because flak was used so heavily in actual modern wars (WWII), you are applying warfare mechanics of one era to another.  Boarding was a heavily used tactic until the late 16th century, when more accurate brass guns that could be fired more often made long range engagements practical.  The introduction of energy shields may make most flak obsolete since it works as an inpenitrable shield against most "small arms" fire (which would be from strikecraft).  Thus, this argument is completely invalid and odd (although not to the degree of comparing SINS to other scifi shows as afore-mentioned).

And the fact that you quote other people sharing the same opinion as you, does not really strengthen your agrument at all.  The problem lies in the fact that they are not experts (no offense);  they are not a developer of the game, they are not someone who completely comprehends how making this change would effect and change every other aspect of combat and is subjective about the subject. Having people that agree with you does not make you right just as much as having a lot of Nazi's doesn't make killing Jews kosher (just an example, not trying to stir you up by calling you a nazi, although that would be an interesting way of going about it; and sorry if i just offended any PC people out there).

A major problem with cap ships with flak is that would most liekly unbalances them in early game with smaller fleets without an overwhelming mass of Strike craft.  This sort of change would take away from the basic balance of the game which is not having any ship that is effective against all other kind of attacks.  Capital ships are effective against all other ships, except strikecraft. if they were given this ability the carrier class would be completely outclassed in any one on one fight as well as other support cap ships which rely partly on their strike craft.

I understand that it is frustrating to have your capital ships swarmed and killed constantly in late game but giving cap ships a "moderate" amount of flak will not change this, it will only unbalance earlier game mechanics. 

The thing is, most likely, every ship would have some sort of flak, but then that would make strike craft nearly useless.  but for the sake of balancing (or for the sake of the designers who don't want to put flak everywhere), the role of anti-fighter support was focused and simplified into the flak frigate.  I would agree that it makes things more awesome with cap ship flak, but in my opinion it hurts the balance of the game.

Quote:

ASTRO-OFFICER: We count thirty Rebel ships, Lord Vader. 
But they're so small they're evading our turbo-lasers!



TRUTH:  
The Death Star could have used some FLAK emplacements.  
Lucas was too enamored with the visuals of turbo lasers to 
bother sticking sticking something as simple as FLAK turrets 
on his precious Death Star!

CONSEQUENCE:  
The Death Star was needlessly destroyed by OverPowered 
Rebel X-Wings, all because it was thoughtlessly built without FLAK!  
(And it had a chimney that lead straight to the reactor core.)


TRUTH:  
Capital ships in SOASE have also thoughtlessly been built without 
FLAK!  By designing the ships this way, the developers follow 
Lucas' dangerous precedent in making othermise mighty vessels 
indefensible to OverPowered strikecraft.

CONSEQUENCE:  
The most powerful ships in the SOASE universe are totally helpless 
when confronted with hordes of strikecraft.  Except the Kol....which 
has Flak.   And the Halcyon, which has mad powerful telekinetics 
onboard.   The Dunov is still kind of vulnerable, with its magnet.....
and a Kortul can probably get away with Jam Weapons.  
Excluding them...TOTALLY HELPLESS!!


My CONCLUSION!!!

Give me an Evacuator and 30 Assailants, and I promise you I will 
kill the Battlestar Galactica before the Vipers get my Assailants.  
I'm pretty certain Grav Bomb will stop them from jumping.  I think.

you miss my point wnmnkh, my issue is not that SINS can't borrow other sci fi ideas it's that it in no way has to stay consistant with any other science fiction universe.  My entire post was just pointing out that Credit's entire original argument was completely flawed.

OK Credit if u want a formalized debate then you need to rebutle against the claims that are being made instead your just using personal attacks

As it stands capital ships wont reciev flak because:

1. Hardcoding limits caps to 3 weapon types

2. Giving caps flak would change the games balance

You're comparing a specifically anti-fighter munitions based system with a general-purpose laser based system?

Hence "almost no" instead of "no" flak.

. . . but that's all beside the point. They're red herrings, deviating from the real question: Must we do everything that other Sci-Si shows do merely for the sake of "being faithful to the Sci-Fi genre?"

You addressed a side issue about the nature of fighter defense in the Sci-Fi genre. Perhaps I should clarify:

Is this only for "keeping in line" with the Sci-Fi genre, or do you believe this will actually improve gameplay?

It sounds like the primary argument you are using for supporting this modification is a bandwagon fallacy.

The fallacy holds: There is no "law" forcing Ironclad to include it if they don't want to include it.

You fail to understand what I have typed.

I am asking if it would improve gameplay. If it does, then it would make sense.

But if it's just to make some hardcore Sci-Fi fans somehow "feel better" then I think Ironclad's priorities should be elsewhere.

This is a side issue, but FYI Star Trek stuff outside the movies and shows aren't really considered canon.

My $.02...

almost, if not all, large ships in the navy have some kind of AA capability, so capital ships in this game definitely should.  Maybe not proper flak guns, but some kind of AA gun that targets fighters and bombers.

Real Life, Star Wars, Star Trek, BSG, etc. ≠ Sins.

Has it used select elements? Yes. Does it need to use more just because? No.

Every Sci-fi would be the same if they all just copy everything from each other.

The reason so many large ships in sci fi have AA guns is because our current real life ships have AA guns, and that is because it makes sense to have protection built in to ships from small fighters and bombers.  Cap ships should absolutely have AA.

Guys, it is a game.  It isn't made to be totally realistic, it is made so that there are advantages an disadvantages to each unit type.  Yes, in any sci fi world where there are fighters, the bigger ships would have flak.  The damn cruisers and carrier cruisers would have some flak too.  Flak is relatively small compared to the size of these ships.

A lot of the arbitrary designs of the ships in a game are not to reflect the "most realistic" world, but to give people choices and counters to other people's choices.  No unit should be able to "do it all".

If you want to really talk about realism, future warfare is not going to use fightercraft at all, unless they were one shot drones with some kind of nuclear pulse gamma laser, or nukes / antimatter bombs.  The whole reason we have fighters in these sci fi worlds is because it is a glorification of WWII aerial combat... ie. the Battle Over Britain and the carrier warfare in the Pacific Theater. 

No future war machine would go through all the trouble of making tiny maneuverable self contained spacecraft, and only put light weapons on it.  A single strikecraft that penetrated the defensive screen would carry a heavy ordinance option to do massive damage to a large ship.

The whole conceit of a sci fi universe with strike craft is quite frankly because it looks cool and it glorifies the concept of the heroic pilot warrior who goes out to fight using his skill rather than wage war by pushing a button in safety somewhere.

At Rembrandt:  I was talking about certian people who have posted on this forum who have directly insulted Credit, I was talking about them and also the people who constantly disagree and say they have this and this to support them so they say this and that on how it would unbalance the game in early stages but yet dont explain thier arguments.  You on the other hand have explained how it would unbalance it in certian situations and I applaud you for it, Im just sick of seeing people who state this and that, crop statements from this and that without even making a solid argument / explaination.  Yes credit is also guilty of this too, but theres a difference when responding to people who  dont want to argue in a civilized manner and people who do.

On the whole weapon change thing, heres an example of the weapon entity from a cap ship:

Weapon
    WeaponType "Projectile"
    damageEnums
        AttackType "CAPITALSHIP"
        DamageAffectType "AFFECTS_SHIELDS_AND_HULL"
        DamageApplyType "BACKLOADED"
        DamageType "PHYSICAL"
        WeaponClassType "AUTOCANNON"
    DamagePerBank:FRONT 54.000000
    DamagePerBank:BACK 99.000000
    DamagePerBank:LEFT 99.000000
    DamagePerBank:RIGHT 54.000000
    Range 5000.000000
    PreBuffCooldownTime 4.500000
    CanFireAtFighter FALSE
    SynchronizedTargeting FALSE
    PointStaggerDelay 1.000000
    TravelSpeed 3500.000000
    Duration 0.000000
    fireConstraintType "CanAlwaysFire"
    WeaponEffects
        weaponType "Projectile"
        burstCount 4
        burstDelay 0.300000
        muzzleEffectName "Weapon_TechCapitalAutoCannonHeavy_Muzzle"
        muzzleSoundMinRespawnTime 0.770000
        muzzleSounds
            soundCount 3
            sound "WEAPON_TECHCAPITALAUTOCANNONHEAVY_MUZZLE"
            sound "WEAPON_TECHCAPITALAUTOCANNONHEAVY_MUZZLE_ALT1"
            sound "WEAPON_TECHCAPITALAUTOCANNONHEAVY_MUZZLE_ALT2"
        hitEffectName "Weapon_TechCapitalAutoCannonHeavy_Hit"
        hitHullEffectSounds
            soundCount 1
            sound "WEAPONIMPACT_PHYSICALHEAVY_HITHULL"
        hitShieldsEffectSounds
            soundCount 1
            sound "WEAPONIMPACT_GENERICHEAVY_HITSHIELDS"
        projectileTravelEffectName "Weapon_TechCapitalAutoCannonHeavy_Travel"

Every weapon has this line, so one could in a mod enable this to true for all ships to test it.  My whole point about this wasn't to actually have IC do this style of editing weapon damaged, I said it is a possibility / one way of doing it (this is from multiple posts on the subject).

For me overall I would like to see flak / anti-SC on cap ships because like I said it makes sense for them to have such things, you may agree or disagree, but thats my beleif.  Do I think IC should do this, yes but not now, it should be a thing for a future patch / expansion when they have time to look this subject over.

At cobra:  Did I state you talking about early gameplay changes, no, this was directed at other people.

At Rembrandt:  Overlooking your example again and noticing a few things, I am not arguing for flak to be 2-3 flak frigs worth of anti-SC, I would have it where its equivilent to maybe one frig or even a half, since capital ships are big, slow targets with not the best firing arcs, therefore it would be logical that thier AA would be weak.  For late Game I do agree that Flak on this scale would not be that great, and why should it on a cap ship, because late game it is more focused on large fleets, early game is more small scale actions and hit and run tactics.

that is why you put lol haha