A Halo mod for the critically acclaimed Sins of a Solar Empire, that aims to capture the fast paced intensity of the Halo series.
Nice, love all the thingy's on it, especially the so called weak spots in the ship ;)
Funny how UNSC ships usually have such obvious "shoot here" spaces on the ship, the covies know whats up B)
Yes yes, thingies are good.
A fun fact for you. On covenant ships the bridge is located deep within the ship. On UNSC ships the bridge is on the exterior.
As the war dragged on humanity started to impress the Elite's with their bravery in battle and the bridge location was remarked upon as being very "warrior." (Or some such honorable thing the elites liked.)
The Sangheili are my favorite race in the Halo universe. They're like Klingons, but smarter.
Hunters For Life, bra.
Elites may be ********, but they're honorable ********
An *******, but not 100% a ****
Brutes are the 100% ****
It's gonna be a looong road, before they finnaly build something like BS Galactica or BS Pegasus... with internal bridge, aka CIC.
What are you talking about?
About effective ship designs.
It's fantasy? It looks ******* cool.. I see your comments everywhere and they're always negative.
I can't even find something to answer to you.
If you don't like my comments or me, you may just never read them and, what's more important, never reply unless asked.
I have my point, and the point is... Stupid designs are not cool - they are stupid. Hulls may look cool, but the most important details usually hopless screwed. External bridges, lack of engines, lack of PDS, ineffective hangar bays construction, armor weak points. Many reasons to never board halo vessels, unless you wanna die, as you said, "cool".
Actually I find most UNSC ships to be on the better side of sci-fi ship designs. They look very human, utilitarian, and functional. The bridge design thing i do have to agree with you on to some degree but it doesn't bother me that much.
Plus, UNSC ships do have PDGs everywhere, we just can't add as many in sins because of poly count and whatnot. And your point on thrusters isn't completely correct, they do have maneuvering thrusters all over them as stated in the books, we just haven't seen them illustrated in games so far (which i would like to see also). I'm not sure what you mean about ineffectual hangar bays though? they seem to work just fine. Ships fly out and can re-enter the ship without any issue.
Box-like is NOT utilitarion and twice NOT functional.
Angled, segmented and modular is wright combo for word 'utilitarian'.
And functionality... Well, humanity still have no idea how really effective multi-functional warship looks like.
Landing bays in UNSC Navy are nothing, but launch-landing opening racks.
Back to hangars, such idea won't allow you to perform combat landing if things go bad. You'll give everything for one opened and armored landing bay, full of friendly techs and defended by dozens of PDGs.
BSG Battlestars show good concept of landing bay: both capable of launching fighters on high speeds and land them or other crafts in large numbers. And they're not much bigger then (!) Halcyon-class.
PDGs... totally ineffective against energy weapon and not enough massed to close the ship by wall of fire. Just like AA turrets on WWII bombers... but here on large and expensive starships. Very ambitious.
Now to armor plating... If they don't have shields, then they must be counting on stronger hulls, and what? Honeycombs? Really?
Screw the honeycombs, they should weld more armor and ribs, and even more armor above it. The same shield, but made of iron. Also, such design would allow them to deminish number of fires from enemy hits, because ordinary fire can't excist in vacuum of space. Their engines sizes would allow it.
Humans ships in many sci-fi universes look cool, and honestly I like Halo ones, but some parts really annoying. And you should take into consideration, that I'm not the one who pay much attention to details. A lot of... objections lie beneath.
Box like very well could be utilitarian and functional, in space in fact box like would be more likely for an actual realistic design than angled, why would a spaceship need angles and curves in the first place? Its space, hell the borg cube is just as functional as anytbing else in space...because it doesn't much matter what a spaceship is shaped like (depending on the role). There are several science articles online that state this same thing. Modular I agree on, but look at UNSC ships, they are modular and segmented. They're built from several variations of shapes, all smashed together to make the ship. Halcyons and Marathons specifically are made up from 5 different rectangular sections, you can tell by just looking at them easily.
The hangars on their ships do allow for quick combat landing, we've seen it in spartan ops, it's been illustrated in the books, several times in fact if I recall. As long as the pilot isn't half brain dead or drunk, I see no reason why they wouldn't be able to make a hasty combat Landing there.
And why would the UNSC have PDGs to defended against plasma weaponry when they weren't expecting to fight the covenant? The insurrectionists weren't carrying around plasma weapons on their ships. Their PDGs are made to destroy missiles, and fighters-which they do just fine. Once again, we've seen that proven in the lore dozens of times. Larger ships in the lore had dozens of guns on them, perfectly capable of creating giant fields of fire.
They do have armor plating as well, titanium-A remember? And it didn't much matter how much armor plating a ship had during the war because plasma would melt right through dozens of meters of Hull in a second, tough to come up with armor that can withstand thousands of degrees C. In fact, it was better to have LESS armor to give UNSC ships a speed and maneuverability advantage.
I don't know man you seem like you pay a good amount to the details to me, which is good! Even though halo ships may not be 100% realistic, they're far better than a lot of sci-Fi designs I've seen personally. At least they make an effort to make it clear what parts of the ship do and what they're for, you know? Unlike say, mass effect ships which are completely based on looking cool.
There is no 100% realistic ship now.
And about angled designs... Angles allow you to place more side-top PDGs without making them more vulnerable. Angles allow you to place more armor above the main hull, to cover external hangar pods and important tech and missile racks.
UNSC ships pretend to look like that, but they actually don't.
About Borg cubes... they use another principe, they adapt to incoming fire. You might remember how SP8742 blew up a whole fleet. Or that occasion when Enterprise-E and supporting fleet killed Queen's cube. No point in that, sorry.
Hangars... Well, if you would like to have a CRASHED starfighter in MAIN hangar, full of ammunition and fuel and personnel, then you are not going to become a firefighter, fire-inspector or carrier designer. Plus, they are not that big as you will want them, when GOING DOWN on damaged fighter. And defenitely you will ram someone there.
And this is in case of the Infinity. Now look at Halcyions!
The UNSC waged this war for a long time and in 2552 we don't see anything that can counter Covies fleet. Just desperate attempts of heroes to slow them down.
Very true, we'll never know what a completely realistic ship will look like until NASA or whoever actually goes about building one, but until then we just have to speculate.
Angles would do that sure, but the UNSC didn't need more PDGs anyway, what they needed was shields, tougher armor and better/faster MAC guns-which they now have post-war. And i don't think its much "pretending", we see a UNSC frigate being built exactly like that in Halo: Reach, solid proof. Now I couldn't say ALL their ships are built that way for sure, but i'd say its a pretty good chance that they are based on how ships look.
I wasn't referring to their defensive abilities for the Borg cube by the way, I was talking purely about its shape in that blocky shapes can still be functional in a zero-G environment with no air resistance and no gravity. Point still stands.
In universe the UNSC fighters managed to dock just fine, all the time. Even with a hangar like on BSG ships you'd still have to maneuver your fighter to line up with the hangar entrance. What if the ship was turned with its side to you? then you still have to fly up to the front of the ship and dock. Halo ships normally have them on their sides, which may actually be safer depending on the situation to not have to fly straight at the bow of the ship if missiles and MACs are going off.
But that's the point of Halo Battlemage, its a story about struggle against greater odds and humanity prevailing over a stronger enemy. Plus its hard to make great strides in technology when several planets and millions of people are getting glassed from existence every other week wouldn't you agree? You see in the Post-war period that the UNSC is quickly improving and matching the covenant ships. I'd say they're not far from having anti-energy weapon measures and energy weaponry themselves soon. In fact, i look forward to that happening just as much as you.
Borg cubes can operate in atmosphere anyway, thanks to their anti-gravs and engines. But, talking about the warship, shape is really important. The good example of UNSC right starship shape is tabletop Punic-class... and Autumn-class.
Number of worlds lost to the enemy is not valuable, till you'll find something like Reach amongst them. Research teams must not be lost, their families must not be affected... No doubt that ONI have some ideas how to protect their employees.
Getting back to hangars... Fighters dock well just because devs said that, but actually there is a little chance to land your longsword (and more, entire squadron) if combat landings authorzied. Also, in case of fire or internal explosion you will lost entire hangar section, if not the hangar itself.
In BSG we see LARGE external hangar pods with no air and no something to burn at all. Just armor, lifts and automatic guns. You'll have to manuever to land something anyway, but larger space is better then relatively small rack.
Halo ships have "launch" tubes, but get back there without autopilot is the worst decision you may ever make. And, defenitely the last one.
I must admit, that Longswords are much larger than vipers or raptors, so pods for them should be really enormous. The UNSC engineers have found the best hangar decision for the worst space fighter. Brave suicide-flyers.
But, when Broadswords will eventually change them in service, I hope to see BSG-styled hangars.
And MACs... The slingshot has outlived itself. New anti-capital ships weapon needed. I would suggest ONI to double their efforts to steal some plans and materials for a 'total Navy upgrade'.
A CIC is a combat information center where all the tactical operations are held. A ships weapon and shields systems can be controlled and monitored from this area within the ship and it's less dangerous than an open and exposed bridge, and considering the UNSC had very weak shields a well placed plasma missile from a covenant cruiser would knock out a ships ability to function, not to mention kill every single officer on the bridge. So in short a CIC is more protected than a bridge on the outside
There is no need in exterior bridge on a dedicated warship at all. Wide camera and sensors network should be enough. Window defenitely won't help operators and officers in control and planing, but merely expose them to the enemy. UNSC bridges are heritage of old fantastic movies, like Star Trek.
I know that's why I'm agreeing with you. There is no need to put the officers of a ship in danger needlessly, and I was also explain to the other guy on what a cic is.
"The hangars on their ships do allow for quick combat landing, we've seen it in spartan ops, it's been illustrated in the books, several times in fact if I recall. As long as the pilot isn't half brain dead or drunk, I see no reason why they wouldn't be able to make a hasty combat Landing there."
If we're gonna talk realism here then let's throw in some actual physics. Aside from the fact you could not have manned starfighters because the G-forces would kill a human being, you're talking about something the size of the space shuttle, travelling at a significantly higher velocity, crashing into a 1km long starship. Do you have any idea how much energy that constitutes? 9/11 would look like a firecracker by comparison.
Unless the hangar and the direction both ships were travelling were the same, which would negate the majority of difference in velocity. And then you'd have to have a sufficient enough "catapult" i.e. and aircraft carrier to stop it within the 1km length of the starship, which is about how long the "hangar would have to be.
In the real world you would probably have combat warships and carriers, with distinct roles, much like modern militaries. It takes space to launch a craft, far more to land one.
And this also excludes the fact there's no point in starfighters altogether, because lasers are far more effective in space and travel at the speed of light, which means a laser on a warship in earth orbit would melt a starfighter in moon orbit in about 4 seconds.
And none of this takes into account the effect of gravity.
So all these points are moot. It's not even Science-Fiction, it's Space Opera.
Looks amazing guys, Cant wait to see it in action with the new skin!
Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.
Malcontent1692 finished his work on re-texturing the Punic this week. Have a look!