Finally finished it!

[Surlyben]

Woo-hoo! I just completed the last mission. It took me a year and a half, but there it is. Nifty little cut scene there at the end.

Just makes me sad that there won't be a sequel... Fighting back to earth... that would have been cool.

I-war and I-war 2 were just so damn cool. Probably the best space dogfighting sims ever. (I mean, they are on my short list with elite, and, um... with elite.) Every time I tried to play non newtonian physics sims, I end up crashing into my target all the time (because I try and keep my guns on it)

Oh yeah, and the easy way to steal the reactor from the junkyard is to reduce your power until only your engines work. This will make you stealthy enough that you can just fly straight in.

Anyway. That was a lot of fun.

[Ranger]

And I thought finishing Splinter Cell was hard (3 months to do the first mission, but I was mainly playing Halo at the time).

Now back to repressing my need to flame the "finished it" posts...

[Dreadnaught]

:up:

[Second Chance]

Why repress your needs? How dare someone come here and announce that they've finished the game. And enjoyed it to boot! What outrageousness, what insolence, what arrogance! Damn them to hell for even evincing an interest in the game this forum is for.

[Surlyben]

Hey, I can understand the need to flame people who do the drive by finished it post... please, be my guest. Won't take away from my delight at having completed the game.

[Ranger]

I've directed my anger towards the Tangoes in Rainbow Six 3. While I do understand the need to shout to the world that you've finished the game, just doesn't really seem to fit anymore plus most of my annoyance comes from another forum where there'd be like 4-5 "I finished it" posts a day.

[Stephen Robertson]

Congratulations, finishing the game is quite an achievement!

What were your favourite bits, and your least favourite bits?

[DrCR]

Originally posted by Ranger
And I thought finishing Splinter Cell was hard (3 months to do the first mission, but I was mainly playing Halo at the time).



Your joking right? I mean, I finished both SC and SC2 in about a week, and that was only gaming in the evenings with a 40+ hour work week.


I never finished EoC. I just lost interest. It doesn't have what IW1 has IMHO. I love everything about EoC except, well, the campain. And maybe the lack of in-game saves, but that's mainly because I've been spoiled by games like SC. :D


DrCR


_________

[Surlyben]

Originally posted by Stephen Robertson
Congratulations, finishing the game is quite an achievement!

What were your favourite bits, and your least favourite bits?

Well, I kinda liked the Dante missions... Satisfying to blow away the Marauder bases. And I wanted more missions in Firefrost system. As for least favorite: That would be any mission that involved me escorting something. I hate escort missions. Also, I missed the gunnery station from I-war, and the ability to unlock the guns.

Hmm. Favorite bits... The flight model, the way ftl was handled (cool to watch the planets zoom by in LDS), the variety of missions, the freeform piracy, even the music when you come out of an l-point in some lonely corner of space...

I also like the simmy aspects. You feel like you're flying a real ship in a real universe. Reminds me of il-2 or, I dunno, Combat Mission or something.

Both (all three?) I-war games had the best ship names of any game ever.

[Ranger]

There's 2 I-War games officially, but I suppose Defiance could be considered a third game but it's "officially" an addon to the original I-War.

[Stone]

Congratulations on finishing the game!

I myself have finished Defiance and IWar2 but somehow never quite got that last mission in the original IWar. :sour:

[Ranger]

Pretty simple from what I remember- get up to speed, detach comsec, pull up, watch the cutscenes.

[sauron1]

My favorite missions in IW2 were the 'find the hidden marauder base' ones - very original, and pretty darn difficult. I agree that escort missions suck, although the ones in IW2 suck less than escort missions in other sims.

Anyhow, congrats on finishing - now you have to replay the game to see all the little details you missed the first time around! :)

[DrCR]

Originally posted by Ranger
Pretty simple from what I remember- get up to speed, detach comsec, pull up, watch the cutscenes.

Well, that might not be the final mission for him (right?). I mean, there are mulitple ending cinemas, three I believe. To be honest, when I lost my campain progess, rather than restart I used the cheat codes...and sort of made a habit of it. ;) :D


DrCR


_________

[Hamsterlord]

Originally posted by Ranger
Pretty simple from what I remember- get up to speed, detach comsec, pull up, watch the cutscenes.

Apparently most people think that's simple. I had quite a bit of trouble with it, since I only thought to do the opposite.

[Surlyben]

Originally posted by Ranger
Pretty simple from what I remember- get up to speed, detach comsec, pull up, watch the cutscenes.

I've always wondered about that. In the opening cinematic, Clay detaches the comsec so that his crew will survive. (That would be his bridge crew, plus the 45 people back in the main hull, who do damage control and basically keep the ship running...)

At the end of I-War, you make the opposite choice, and sacrifice the crew so that you and your bridge crew can live. Did I miss a cut scene?

[Hamsterlord]

You may not have caught the accomodation modules detatching as well as the comsec in the video - the crew are in those.

However, I had the same thought... I tried dozens of attempts to repeat Clay's heroic gesture before finally asking here what I was doing wrong. :P

[Surlyben]

That would explain it. It's been a while since I played and I only finished it the once...

[Stephen Robertson]

Originally posted by Surlyben
Well, I kinda liked the Dante missions... Satisfying to blow away the Marauder bases.

That makes me happy. :D I designed and scripted those missions. They were a pain in the backside to do, but I'm pretty pleased with them. One of the missions is included in the POG SDK, so you can see how much code was required for the mission. :eek:

Did you use any mods while playing?

[Surlyben]

Yeah, I used the crosshair, custom jafs, location finder, tug fix, and a mod that lets you play mp3s (which I rarely remembered to turn on.)

[dmfp321]

The Dante missions were some of my favorites also.

Oh, and congratulations on finishing the game. :) There are some really good mods you should try out. I have to go to school soon but when I get back I'll list a few for ya.

[Greb]

I never had any difficulties with that last mission, the first thing I thought of was to detatch the comsec and use the Dreadnaught to ram the ?Excalibur?, I rated my survival too highly to do anything else. :D

In my opinion moments like that made I-war so much fun to play, I replayed that COSA mission soooo many times so I could crash the freighter into the base. ;) I'd have really enjoyed being able to detatch to pasties too, I tried to script it in once, but I could never get the docking port co-ordenates accurate enough. :(

Greb

[Red_Hex]

the dante missions in iw2 were some of the best missions ive ever played in any game. the first time i played them, i felt a real rush of excitement that i was taking part in a bold and crucial massive assault involving multiple allies with multiple fleets on multiple fronts throughout this remote system taking place as i played. it carried me forward on its wave and immediacy. you realise on further playthroughs of course that its scripted, not a race against time, but thats always the case. moments like that are what you play games for.

[Stone]

Damn! You guys are making me want to load it back up and see exactly where I left the game at!! :) Now I'm going to have to find an old VooDoo3 card someplace.

[Nightwatch]

Arrgh! Now your making me regret not hunting down a non flawed copy of I-war at the time. I never got passed the one with the carrier that you have to fly into and pilot out as the game disks were faulty :( I guess I'll have to pite the bullet and play Iwar to the conclusion now. Oh the horror!!! :D

I agree that the Dante missions were ace. Everything from the amient lighting and to the pace of the missions to the atmosphere were first class. I'm replaying I-war2 again at the moment and I'm really looking forward to those missions.

[DrCR]

Oooh, you guys are making me want to finish EoC now lol. :D

Where were the Dante missions in the game (as in Act X.whatever)? It's been a long while since I played IWar2. At least a couple of years. I started getting really frustrated with the lack of an ingame save when I replayed a mission a few times only to get toasted at the end each time. I stopped playing a little after when you get zapped or whatever, taken to a base to get some alien artpiece, get a capsual drive, and have to go look for allies or something. That's about one third of the way through right? I think there was something about a 'Hope Station' or something getting wasted around there too.


I sure hope I have my EOC save files still stashed away somewhere. :D


DrCR


__________

[Red_Hex]

the section you were at is more like a quarter through, id say. the dante missions directly precede act three. without spoiling too much, theyre the culmination of most of your efforts in act 2, involving independent factions from most other systems whom you lead to agree to commit to a full assault on the marauders, whose secret base(s)' location you have established.

[DrCR]

Cool deal. When do you get your new ship?

Would be pretty cool if you could hijack other ships. Something like Driver3 for space. Perhaps in, ahem, IWar3. :D


DrCR


__________

[Red_Hex]

you get the advanced patcom... about halfway through act 2 from a well armed faction. its a tremendous relief after the tug. youll feel invincible. the heavy corvette you get shortly before the dante missions i think. i always prefer to fly it since its tougher and fits more guns, but i think most people stick with the patcom because they prefer its agility.

[Ranger]

I liked the Heavy Corvette because it could dish out a lot of damage, but I did prefer the Patcom's agility. It's capable of mounting some decent hardware itself and can be put into a multirole position, but the Corvette can mount the firepower to take down cruisers.

[jessica00]

its kind of sad you could pit a well armed corvette against a cruiser and take it down in seconds.
player vs AI balance is kinda steep there. :)

[Ranger]

Not really sad, more like realistic. Superior maneuverability and a tighter firing radius will take out capital ships as long as the corvette isn't flying straight at the capital and in a main gun radius.

[Stephen Robertson]

Originally posted by jessica00
its kind of sad you could pit a well armed corvette against a cruiser and take it down in seconds.
player vs AI balance is kinda steep there. :)

It's not unusual in modern combat for a heavily armed and armoured ship to be taken out by a much smaller, faster and more maneuverable vessel.

For example: A bunch of terrorists in a speedboat took out the USS Cole. A single exocet missile fired from a fighter destroyed HMS Sheffield during the Falklands war.

[hoom]

Uhm, neither of those count as heavily armoured (though Arliegh Burkes were the first post WWII boats to take armour seriously at all) & Sheffield could hardly be described as heavily (or even well) armed either :p
The Cole didn't know it was coming so was unable to fend off the attack.
m35_1.smk pretty much shows what should happen in the case of small ship vs cruiser.

[Ranger]

Ah, recalling offhand, the Indie Patcom attacking the Danube Destroyer only to get splashed by one of the side Heavy PBCs?

[Second Chance]

Don't forget how the first topedo boats (which were relatively small - about 15m) sent shockwaves through the Navies of the world when single ships started destroying enemy Dreadnaughts (or "Battleships") in the late 1800's, prompting the need to develop the first Torpedo Boat Destroyers to defend against them. The Dreadnaughts being too slow and unwieldy to effectively fight back on their own. And Torpedo Boats were so cheap (and large warships so expensive) that even the loss of several while sinking one Dreadnaught was considered a victory.

*edit*
A small correction: I didn't mean to imply that the Dreadnaughts were helpless against the Torpedo Boats, but when used in fleet actions (a single Torpedo Boat against a battleship is simply suicide) there comes a point of diminishing returns when the enemy fleet has to decide whether it should engage your heavy warships and risk destruction by your torpedo boats or destroy your torpedo boats while in turn being destroyed by your heavy warships. Which is where the Destroyer screen comes in. Naval fleet engagements start to get a bit complicated beyond this point so I'll leave it here, but I did want to clarify myself.

[jessica00]

ah yes. this reminds me of an old ps 1 game.
some kinda really neat battleship combat game. you could essentially take a patrol boat (single barrel, 1 torp launcher) against a huge aegis (3-6 barrel, multiple torpedo launchers, hey its a game) and run circles around it while it can do nothing but fire at your wake.

i forget the title. i wish i had this. it was a fun ass 3d ship combat game.

[Red_Hex]

most armoured combat in the modern world has come full circle. weve gone through armouring ever greater weaponry to defend against ever greater armoured weaponry for a century or more... and have now progressed to the point where the most heavily armed and armoured piece of badassery, be it ship, tank or plane, can be taken out by relatively inexpensive, simple units. any tank, apc or artillery piece out there can be reduced to scrap by one man with a rocket launcher. any ship can be sunk by a specially equipped plane or a remote missile. any plane can be shot down by a relatively advanced missile, from a battery or a man on the ground.

this reveals the folly behind the retained old-school military notion that hardware is where its at. the military-industrial complex has never been the most forward looking, adaptive environment.

i feel sure someone like ranger is going to tell me im wrong, and of course im wrong because we didnt see any tanks in iraq blown up, or any ships, or planes. because i mean, iraq had such a modern, well equipped military didnt it? it was a fair matchup.

[Second Chance]

But doesn't your last bit support the notion that hardware is where it's at?

The reality is that practically no nation is at the technological level (of military) that the U.S. is. But they get closer every day. And that's what drives hardware development. Military technology is about having and using the latest greatest weapon before your enemy has a chance to develop defenses against it. The whole idea of warfare is to make it as unfair as possible (kill your enemy without being killed), it's not a competition to see who wins fair and sqare under equal circumstances. Only a fool would want to fight a fair war.

I think the idea that the military hardware industry is not a forward-looking and adaptive environment is a rather silly statement. Vitually every technological advance in history has come from the development of new weapons of war and their countermeasures. The only exception that I can think of off-hand was the American Manned Moon Mission which was still politically driven to demoralize the Soviet enemy.

It is also not true that any piece of expensive hardware can be reduced to scrap by an inexpensive piece of hardware. If that were true, nations wouldn't invest billions of dollar to purchase these expensive hardware systems. There are plenty of defense systems that can foil rocket or missile attacks, ranging from electronic countermeasures to balistic materials that can withstand tremendous impacts. The composite rotorblades of an Apache helicopter can withstand at least one direct rocket hit without being crippled or destroyed. And even the vaunted Exocet anti-shipping missile can be confused into attacking the nearby empty water. These examples, in turn, drive the development of more lethal and accurate weapon systems. Which drive the development of more complex and workable defenses. And so on, and so on. And that is what military technology is all about; having the latest and greatest weapon, and using it, before the other guy finds a way to defeat it.

Warfare can never come full circle because it is an unending race to gain an advantage over your enemy, whatever form that advantage might take. From the first day a caveman discovered that a rock could do a better job than his fist to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program. Military dominance is a fluid environment; what works today may not work tomorrow, so you'd better get your ass in gear and make something better. The only way the race can ever end is if warfare is no longer seen as a viable option with which to resolve conflicts. Which, personally, I think is unlikely at the current state of human cultural development.

And isn't it interesting how we drool over the prospects of what war will bring us, hundreds (or even thousands) of years in the future, through our enjoyment of science fiction space combat. With nary a thought or care for the countless living beings who die horribly and painfully with each conflict. Now that, I think, says something about human nature.

On a side note, here is a fascinating look at different eras of naval tactics and how they relate to sci-fi spaceship combat. It's worth a read. Technical Ramifications of Spaceship Combat (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tactics/Naval-Tactics.html)

[Stephen Robertson]

Originally posted by Second Chance
The only exception that I can think of off-hand was the American Manned Moon Mission which was still politically driven to demoralize the Soviet enemy.

Both the Soviet and American programs depended on German scientists who devloped the V2 rocket (with slave labour), and were iinitially driven by ICMB technology. So the space race was essentially military technology based.

It is also not true that any piece of expensive hardware can be reduced to scrap by an inexpensive piece of hardware. If that were true, nations wouldn't invest billions of dollar to purchase these expensive hardware systems.

True, but as the costs of hardware spiral out of control many governments (including the UK) are over-concentrating on unreliable and hi-tech military hardware and cutting back the most adaptive and versatile piece of military equipment - the soldier on the ground. As the coalition in Iraq is finding, nothing can replace men on the ground. You can't capture and secure territory with air power and remotely guided missiles alone.


And isn't it interesting how we drool over the prospects of what war will bring us, hundreds (or even thousands) of years in the future, through our enjoyment of science fiction space combat. With nary a thought or care for the countless living beings who die horribly and painfully with each conflict. Now that, I think, says something about human nature.

We already considered this. In Defiance we added a secret 'body count' mode, which incremented a counter by certain amounts when ships and stations got destroyed. It's sobering to see the numbers mount up as you progress through a mission.

I can't remember how it was activated though. I don't think anyone's found it yet.

[jessica00]

well, isnt that a lovely easter egg. :p

(i can imagine the numbers a sobering, too).

[Nightwatch]

Originally posted by Second Chance
The reality is that practically no nation is at the technological level (of military) that the U.S. is. But they get closer every day.

Hmm. I think you might want to have a relook. The eurofighter Typhoon is at least as good in many respects and is in many respects better than the raptor fight the US are still developing (yeah yeah, it has no "stealth" coating. Big deal, as the raptor reportedly has 50 times the radar sig of the Nighthawk (one of which was reportedly nearly attacked by a British destroyer that could see it clear as day during Gulf War I) and thats before it straps on the exernal fuel tanks..) Thing is, the Typhoon costs 3 times less than the Raptor and is in operation 8 years before the Raptor. What conclusion would you draw from that?

And I'd happily take on your M1A1 with a Russian T-90 or a Challanger II any time you like.

The difference between the Eurozone and US, for example, is both that the Eurozone spends 2 thirds the amound of money that the US does on Offense.. er I mean Defense :D, and the fact the they spend and average of 10% on equipment, where as in the US it's more in the 30 percent range (if not more)

And we did see tanks knocked out in Iraq. In fact, we still are seeing tanks knocked out in Iraq.

[Nightwatch]

Whoops, sorry. Double post!

[Second Chance]

But one aircraft or one tank does not make a military. You have to look at the force as a whole. If the U.S. only had one aircraft or one tank to put against it's enemies then everything I said would be pointless.

And if it were up to me I'd gladly put the American tank corp against any Russian battalion anyday. In addition to my earlier points, it takes more than just harware to win a war. It takes brilliant commanders and operators of that hardware. It takes logistics and training. And most importantly, it takes resources. In a conventional war of attrition, the U.S. wins every time. It happened in WW-1, it happened in WW-2 and it will happen if you want to start WW-3. The U.S. commanders would find a way to win.

I think a common problem gamers have is that they tend to focus so extremely on one aspect of a potential conflict. Whether it's stealth or a particular plane or a missile. You don't win wars with one guy using one piece of hardware like in a game.

I'm forced to agree with Stephen about his two points. But, the fatal mistake the U.S. is making in Iraq is that it's incapable of fighting a small scale guerrilla war. It always has been. It faced the same problem in Vietnam. The U.S. being so high profile forces it to play (more or less) by the rules of International Law. Guerrillas have no such restrictions and get away with things the U.S. can't. How long do you think it would take to subdue Iraq if we just leveled everything and killed everybody?

[Ranger]

How long would it take to move about 10 or 20 MOABs to the area and drop them? Around that much.

Topic's really derailed now.

[Red_Hex]

Originally posted by Stephen Robertson
I can't remember how it was activated though. I don't think anyone's found it yetif noones found it by now i suspect it will never be found. might it be worth remembering and revealing?

my point in mentioning iraq was that modern militaries have so much technology and money spent on them and then get mobilised to face opponents like the iraqi army. face it; this iraq war could have been won as effectively as it has been by forces 30 years out of date, with the same logistics, planning and numbers. modern militaries are wrapped up in their own little world. they plan on the eventuality of facing other modern militaries. which hasnt happened for 60 years. rangers gonna come and say something about preferring to be prepared. me, id prefer my hundreds of trillions of taxpayers money back thankyou.

[GrandpaTrout]

How long do you think it would take to subdue Iraq if we just leveled everything and killed everybody?

Forever. War is not a zero sum game. You win when the enemy chooses to stop fighting. Chooses to stop bombing your schools, stealing your air craft, throwing rocks at your tanks. *Chooses* to stop.

Twice in the last 200 years a European nation has overwhelmed the others and defeated them (France first, Germany second). Both times victory was short lived and they were totally defeated. The more they won, the more enemies they created.

You have to convince the losing side that you are willing to let them win *something*. That you can create a legitimate government that has thier best interest at heart. Otherwise it is fighting forever, and wide escalation.

We dropped more bombs in tiny Vietnam than we did in WWII. Millions of people were killed. They wanted self determination, we wanted to install a dictatorship (or hand them back to the French). Killing a few million more would not have made them trust us. (no matter what the conservative think tanks would say).

Which should not surprise Americans, who fought vastly superior forces with hunting rifes and no supplies: "Don't fire until you see the whites of thier eyes". Or the UK: "...we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender...". Speech Here (http://www.presentationhelper.co.uk/winston_churchill_speech_beaches.htm)

Just ask the Indies, fighting the navy with tugs. The story is good because it rings of truth.

Yes, better weapons let you kill more people. But winning requires Humanity not bayonettes.

[SpaceCase]

I guess im going to try to beat the game again... wish me luck :D

[Second Chance]

@ GTrout - Points taken, but unless by *chooses* to stop you mean that the enemies will to make war has been broken and their fighting forces put in such a position that they can no longer carry on the fight, then I disagree. The only thing the enemy needs to be convinced that it's going to win by choosing not to fight is its own continued existence. Or else, if the enemy is to be coerced, you must put him in a situation that is even more unpleasant than the sacriface you call on him to make. The hardships of which must not, of course, be merely transient - at least not in appearance. Your European examples merely show that the ultimate outcome of war is not always to be regarded as final. A defeated state often considers the outcome merely as a transitory evil, for which a remedy may still be found in political conditions at a later date.

Real war is no game of any kind. It's not a pastime, not simply joy in daring and winning, no place for irresponsible enthusiasts. It is a serious means to a serious end, and all its colorful resemblance to a game, all the vicissitudes of passion, courage, imagination and enthusiasm it includes are simply its special characteristics. Kind-hearted people might think that there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might even imagine that this is the true goal of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it's a fallacy. War is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst. The aim of war is to completely disarm your enemy and compel him do your will, and maximum use of force is in no way incompatible with the simultaneous use of intellect. If one side uses force without compunction, undeterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the other side refrains, the first will gain the upper hand. This is why the U.S. easily conquered the large nation of Iraq, but is desperately fighting an increasingly difficult battle against small groups of terrorist insurgents.

Speaking of Iraq, I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss their forces as pathetic. Their infantry consisted of over one million soldiers and their tank forces were the most powerful and feared in the Middle-East. Whatever over-confident opinions the privates and fighter-jocks may have given during television interviews, I'm sure the commanders and decision-makers were planning the war as if they were about to face the most formidable enemy ever encountered.

I fully subscribe to the teachings and observations of Carl Von Clausewitz, to whom I owe much.

[Red_Hex]

actually, no. the majority of the iraqi commanders were paid off or... relocated by the cia before the war to ensure their forces were not available when the time came. thats why there was such little resistance. the tank divisions went largely unmanned and uncommanded. all that was left by the time the war actually started was those units commanded by the most loyal/embittered/rich enough not to consider cia bribes, and there weren't many.

id really love to have a link for this, but i watched a documentary on it months and months ago on tv, not online. i dont doubt its out there anyway.

[Second Chance]

I fail to see what you're saying no to. Are you trying to say that when that war was being planned the commanders said "Oh hey look, what a great coincidence. Some of the Iraqi commanders have been distracted by money. Well, I guess we won't have to try as hard when we fight them. So let's not put too much effort into planning." Again, the larger picture is being missed. Why were the Iraqi commanders being paid off and relocated? Because that was part of the planned policy of the war. The CIA didn't just one day say "Hey, here's an idea, let's bribe and relocate some Iraqi commanders. Maybe it'll be useful someday." Money is as much an instrument of war as any piece of hardware. And it was implemented as part of the maximum force brought to bear against the enemy.

You cannot single out any element of the political policy of war as having an effect on that war without acknowledging that it was caused by the planned policy of that war. In other words; bribing them was part of the plan.

Warfare does not solely consist of physical attack and counter-attack. I'll reiterate my earlier statement: War is an unending race to gain an advantage over your enemy, whatever form that advantage might take.

It would also be foolish to have planned a war with no regard whatever for the contingency that the bribed Iraqi commanders might move to rejoin their troops. "You gave me money and I promised I wouldn't fight. Oops, I lied."

[Nightwatch]

Originally posted by Red_Hex
actually, no. the majority of the iraqi commanders were paid off or... relocated by the cia before the war to ensure their forces were not available when the time came. thats why there was such little resistance. the tank divisions went largely unmanned and uncommanded. all that was left by the time the war actually started was those units commanded by the most loyal/embittered/rich enough not to consider cia bribes, and there weren't many.

id really love to have a link for this, but i watched a documentary on it months and months ago on tv, not online. i dont doubt its out there anyway.

It was on ITV in britian. Think it was called "the secret war" or something like that. If featured one guy from the republican guard who said that his unit was dug in, well stocked and were ready to go. then their copmmander told then that they were moving out of their defensive position in daylight and moving back to bagdahd. an hour later their commander and his staff had vanished and the american planes appearted, knowing exactly where they were. Possible because the US had given Iraqi generals mobile phones to let them know where their forces were.

Another shot was this american sodldier walking among the Iraqi tanks lined up ready to go and cheerfully talking about that if the Iraqis had decided to fight they would have held teh US up for months. By estamation, the US faced a maximum of about 50,000 men during the campain.

Oh, and apperently the head of Iraqi intellegence was shipped out during the war. He bieng the guy who ran Saddams prisons and was most directly responsible for Saddams mass graves, he was a definate friend of the west.

Oh well.

[hoom]

With great effort I'm gonna actually get back to the topic of the single corvette vs cruiser topic.
There's been plenty of evidence for multiple small units successfully taking out a single larger unit posted here
Its something that I never disagreed with.

But I see no supporting evidence whatsoever for the single small ship that can take on a cruiser 1 v 1 & win.

[Nightwatch]

Your right about that. There have been examples of small ships evading bigger ships fire in combat. (the scouting light cruiser dodging the ememy battleships fire for half an hour at the battle of Jutland is an early example) But little of the light criser taking out the big ship. Though maybe the smaller english schooner taking on the portugese man-o-war as the man-o-war guns were si high out of the water that it could not hit it is an example of that.

The thing is that generally the bigger the ship the bigger the guns you can rack onto it. with bigger guns comes longer range, so you should be able to knock out the smaller ship before it could fire on you. Plus bigger ships = thicker armour so that his smaller guns cant do as much damage to you as you are doing to him. None of those are true in I-war 2 (cant remember about I-war.) That said, the biggest problem that the emeny ships dont track you proberly in I-war 2. And thank goodness, because otherwise they would smoke you in seconds! :)

[Second Chance]

But I see no supporting evidence whatsoever for the single small ship that can take on a cruiser 1 v 1 & win. Agreed. That idea is definitely the product of a writers imagination or the exaggerated exploits of someone's wartime good-fortune. Generally, smaller ships designed to be a threat to large powerful ships are designed to attack en masse. With many expected losses of the smaller, cheaper ships during the course of destroying a large expensive ship. But the loss of these small, inexpensive ships is certainly worth it to destroy a battleship or cruiser.

It's not entirely impossible for a single small ship to destroy a large warship, just very unlikely and against normal design intentions.

[Vagamus]

1 smaller ship vs 1 larger ship winning. Seems perfectly acceptible to me. For all of you arguing against this working, i offer these ideas:

Cramming a large ship with all the armor, weapons, power it will hold, most people who design these ships design them to be effective for their size and do not commonly design them to defend against smaller vessels. Larger ships are design to be escorted by picket vessels to be effective in war.

Cramming a smaller ship with weapons, speed, all the equipment it may need to dodge around those larger ships in undenyably going to destroy that larger vessel. Why? Think about it... a vessel much larger than it will have infintesimally smaller chances at hitting it than the smaller ship against the larger ship would.

The smaller ship being able to dodge shots and plug his target, get under his hull and PASS him in an aggressive strafe is going to cause 10 kinds of hell for that crew.

Larger vessel vs Smaller vessel in space combat is undeniably going to win that fight, as it is especially vulnerable in space.

On the sea, a larger vessel vs a smaller vessel is a little more feasable, but equally tough because the smaller vessel may speed beyond the traverse of the guns on the larger vessel. If the smaller vessel can withstand small arms fire up to .50 cal or more, it'll be fine against any large modern naval vessel. You could armor a speed boat against such attacks, arm it with torpedoes or even a larger autocannon, and it will eventually find that kink in the bigger ships armor.

Lets also no forget how incredibly easy it would be for the smaller vessel to choose targets ON the vessel, such as the bridge, or specific guns on the ship.

"Normal" design specifications these days are what i just said. "Ships of the line", Escort, and Picket vessels. There are specialized Picket and Escort vessels designed SPECIFICALLY to take on larger ships, and they have been a part of navies since the first world war. Whether they be subs, torpedo boats, frigates, strike carriers, PT boats, or a simple speedboat with a 50 cal strapped to it... they were ALL designed to take on larger vessels, support or not.

The Aegis Cruiser is a popular example. Its a destroyer sized vessel, designed specifically to be able to both own the skies, and the water... it can sink vessels up to and exceeding super carrier size. Its got a batterie of surface to surface missles, asrocs, and its own (albeit small) high-velocity automatic cannon.

Another good example would be the old PT Boats. Designed to be raiders, to get in fast, sink a larger ship, and get out. They were very successful in destroying larger ships, all the way up to cruisers, and their losses are attributed to the picket part of the fleet hunting them down.

No, arguing that a smaller vessel cannot win won't work. Especially in iwar.

In every war, you design things to counter an enemy threat, its either conventional like simply building a larger or more sophisticated ship, or its unconventional by building smaller attack vessels. When designing the smaller vessels, you design em to have the MOST effectiveness, meaning highly trained crews, specific attack tactics.

Its tougher to a crew of a smaller ship because they have to fight off the opposing figure of their targets among other things, but its been proven in the past... over and over again... that smaller vs larger cannot default to larger.

Not every major advance came from war, btw. Every major weapon advance came from every major general advance. Not the other way around. LESS War is actually MORE frugal to a population that cares for science. Despite what you hear, less overall resources have been poured into research as war breaks out. Historically, what happens is they simply shift all of their staff towards weapons, and in fact cut funding for the rest of the science. Science does not benefit from war, unless you consider the only valid scientific acheivement a weapon.

The only reason we seemed to get advancements done durin the cold war was due to the fact that, though it was a "war", no battle were being fought, and there was actually some "peace". Science continued normally, with a slight shift to weaponary, but we were already highly interested in space technology prior to the actual outbreak of the cold war. Our gov't, atleast, must have several uses for a potentially expensive technology before we use it. The other uses for space tech were listed as communications, scientific exploration, and finally planetary monitoring. (Among others) So far, i'd say all that tv, internet, phone use, weather monitoring, ect... was the real focus of that drive.

If you still wanna argue this through, think about this... our ship building hasn't changed in hundreds of years. Tech gets better, structure never changes. Assuming we go all the way into IWAR era stuff and structure still remains the same... the fast ships will be deadlier, the big ships will be the same and require escort, the big ship would be less lucky to escape the combat intact for the simple structure of warfaring vessels and naval combat.

Most of what you people are talking about is a conventional navy, where there are fleets of unconventional navies that don't follow the rules, and are deadly to conventional navy vessels. Stealth, Speed, Agility, whatever you want to call it.

[Vagamus]

Originally posted by Second Chance
I'm forced to agree with Stephen about his two points. But, the fatal mistake the U.S. is making in Iraq is that it's incapable of fighting a small scale guerrilla war. It always has been. It faced the same problem in Vietnam. The U.S. being so high profile forces it to play (more or less) by the rules of International Law. Guerrillas have no such restrictions and get away with things the U.S. can't. How long do you think it would take to subdue Iraq if we just leveled everything and killed everybody? The mistake we're making, just like in Vietnam, is that we are damned near baseless. You're right, we're a conventional fighting force a whole, but that didn't stop us from liberally using SEALs and other spec ops units in Afghanistan before we sent troops. We sent troops to Iraq, right away, on old, suspicious, and utterly unproven intelligence.

Our PROBLEM, is that we went there without a common purpose... and then the idiot some people call president, egged on more terrorist attacks. When the world didn't want to support the war, instead of finding a way to make it acceptible, we simple went in... after givin Saddam an ultimatum, including the removal of weapons he didn't have... within 48 hours. There was no way in hell he could have met those conditions, and so yes, a lot of the world sees what we did as an aggressive action. World doesn't tolerate that anymore.

When we did finally get Saddam and "liberate" Iraq, it wasn't over, and we made it worse with our own intervention. Now that the new gov't is in, they've begun doing the same things Saddam did, the Iraqi's are of course angry with us because not only do they have to rebuild (which we promised to help with, but almost unanimously haven't done yet...), but now they have to deal with a country that was far less stable than it was. Doesn't matter who was in chage, war will simply do that to a population. Our military isn't police, no matter how hard we try to make them police.

There are SO many mistakes made up to now in Iraq, its not even funny. I got over a thousand ways to show how... because they build by the day.

Oh, and levelling the place wouldn't help you. At all. Speaking of only focusing on singlular things, don't pretend the world isn't watching us. If we did that (Hell, we've already killed 10,000+ civies in Iraq this war alone...), we'd get all kinds of hell for it. I would venture to say the rest of the world would rally to remove us from Iraq, first through the UN of course.

[Second Chance]

So, "normal" design specs for warships these days are for "ships of the line", eh?

Interesting.

I don't think I live on the same planet that you do, tell me more.

[Ranger]

This thread's going way off topic officially. I'd suggest taking it to community since this'll be closed presuming any of the mods get off their asses and check their reports.

[Vagamus]

Originally posted by Second Chance
So, "normal" design specs for warships these days are for "ships of the line", eh?

Interesting.

I don't think I live on the same planet that you do, tell me more. Don't give me the "what planet you're living on" response. If you think you got a counter, counter... don't ad hominem your point across me, i don't respond very well to it, as you might have noticed.

I'm not going into great detail, but read a naval tactics book someday. If you're not willing to read books, this is a decent place to start reading: http://www.free-definition.com/Modern-Naval-tactics.html

I have gone as far as design ships in the past for specified tactics and listless other reasons for hobby. Ask jessica00 or StormHammer01.

"Ship of the line" is a synonym for the purpose of a modern battleship. (In some cases, heavier cruisers.)

Naval tactics have not changed much from the basic, and ships are still designed to the spec that blue water fleets will meet on fleet terms, not single operations... which is why a smaller vessel equipped for single or flotilla ops will sink a ship designed to be a fleet ship as the "larger" vessels are.

For these reasons, Robertson is correct in his statements. Unconventional ships that do not follow or engage with the standard aging naval tactics can indeed bring down a larger ship... whether they know whats coming for them or not.

In any case, I agree with Ranger, you want more, start an OT thread.

[Second Chance]

Ok, how's this? (Remember everybody, I was asked for this.)

You state many of your opinions as if they are established facts to be taken at face value, but you don't provide any supporting information.
most people who design these ships design them to be effective for their size and do not commonly design them to defend against smaller vessels. I take it you're good friends with these people. Show me the specific requirements of specific ships that call for this design doctrine.
Cramming a smaller ship with weapons, speed, all the equipment it may need to dodge around those larger ships in undenyably going to destroy that larger vessel. Why? Think about it... a vessel much larger than it will have infintesimally smaller chances at hitting it than the smaller ship against the larger ship would. Hey, way to back up that statement with solid numbers. Care to explain your calculations? Exactly how fast do you think ships move? And what ranges do you think they engage at?
The smaller ship being able to dodge shots and plug his target, get under his hull and PASS him in an aggressive strafe is going to cause 10 kinds of hell for that crew. I assume you've stopped talking about naval ships and jumped to spaceships. Since spaceship combat is imaginary, anything goes. I can't say what definitely will or won't happen in space, so I'm keeping my speculation based on real naval operations.
Larger vessel vs Smaller vessel in space combat is undeniably going to win that fight, as it is especially vulnerable in space. What is the basis for this statement? Where is the proof that a smaller vessel will "undeniably" win? Why would a vessel in space be "especially vulnerable?" (Although you didn't write it that way, I believe your meaning was that the smaller vessel wins.)
On the sea, a larger vessel vs a smaller vessel is a little more feasable, but equally tough because the smaller vessel may speed beyond the traverse of the guns on the larger vessel. Again, how fast do you think ships move? At the dozen plus miles at which ships engage, a ship would have to move mighty fast indeed to outperform even a massive gun's aiming mechanism.
If the smaller vessel can withstand small arms fire up to .50 cal or more, it'll be fine against any large modern naval vessel. Please explain how you arrived at this conclusion.
Lets also no forget how incredibly easy it would be for the smaller vessel to choose targets ON the vessel, such as the bridge, or specific guns on the ship. Really? How easy is that? I hate to break it to you, but shipboard gun aiming systems aren't that accurate, especially on a rolling sea (even with gyroscopic stabilization). And if you're talking about hand-aimed machine-guns, well, they're not very effective or accurate from 10 miles away.
There are specialized Picket and Escort vessels designed SPECIFICALLY to take on larger ships 100% true, as previously discussed. And they're a huge danger, which is why modern capital ships are protected by a destroyer screen.
The Aegis Cruiser is a popular example. Its a destroyer sized vessel, designed specifically to be able to both own the skies, and the water Designed specifically for that, eh? Is that what it says in the sales brochure? What the Aegis Combat System (which is installed on multiple classes of ship) was designed for is to track and attack multiple multi-mission threats, and is currently used in a Theater Missile Defense role, to counter short- and medium-range ballistic missiles of the variety typically employed by rogue states. The heart of the system is an advanced, automatic detect and track, multi-function phased array radar, the AN/SPY-1. This high-powered (four megawatt) radar is able to perform search, track and missile guidance functions simultaneously with a track capacity of over 100 targets. It was not designed specifically to target large vessels only.
When designing the smaller vessels, you design em to have the MOST effectiveness, meaning highly trained crews, specific attack tactics. While large ships are designed to be as ineffective as possible, with poorly trained crews and random attack tactics.
Its tougher to a crew of a smaller ship because they have to fight off the opposing figure of their targets among other things, but its been proven in the past... over and over again... that smaller vs larger cannot default to larger. What does this mean!? Give some examples of this multitude of proof and maybe this statement will make more sense.
Not every major advance came from war, btw. Every major weapon advance came from every major general advance. Not the other way around. LESS War is actually MORE frugal to a population that cares for science. Despite what you hear, less overall resources have been poured into research as war breaks out. Historically, what happens is they simply shift all of their staff towards weapons, and in fact cut funding for the rest of the science. Science does not benefit from war, unless you consider the only valid scientific acheivement a weapon. I don't even know where to start on this bit. List some major technological advances that didn't come from war. Also, define your idea of a "major" advance before you start.
If you still wanna argue this through, think about this... our ship building hasn't changed in hundreds of years. Could you please explain this? I don't think my country is currently hand-fabricating multi-gundecked wooden sailing ships for its navy.

btw - Thanks for that official and highly technical link. Just to show my appreciation I pulled most of the info I used here from it.

But wait, there's more.
I have gone as far as design ships in the past for specified tactics and listless other reasons for hobby. Whew, can't beat that. Lucky for me I've designed aircraft and spacecraft. Guess that makes me an aerospace engineer. Watch out Lockheed!
Ask jessica00 or StormHammer01. No way! Not the jessica00 and StormHammer01!? The dudes who single-handedly rewrote the book on modern naval architecture!? WOW!
"Ship of the line" is a synonym for the purpose of a modern battleship. Please show me where you read that ship-of-the-line is a synonym for modern battleships (which are no longer in use either, but that's another story). Are you sure it was a book? Are you sure it wasn't nothing!

Isaac Asimov adapted the term "ship of the Line" to apply to the armed spaceships which served a similar role to the old naval vessels for the Galactic Empire of his Foundation trilogy.
Naval tactics have not changed much from the basic, and ships are still designed to the spec that blue water fleets will meet on fleet terms, not single operations... which is why a smaller vessel equipped for single or flotilla ops will sink a ship designed to be a fleet ship as the "larger" vessels are. There are so many things wrong with this statement. Define "basic" naval tactics. And where did you get your information that naval tactics haven't changed? Tactics change every time a new weapon is introduced. I thought you said you've read all these books on naval tactics. Do you think modern Rear Admiral Stanley Bryant uses the same tactics as WW-I Rear-Admiral Bradley Fiske? Or that Fiske used the uses the same tactics as General Mark Antony of Rome? Now show me where it says that all ships are designed to a single specification. And if that last part is true, I guess there's no longer any need for fleet operations. Thanks for setting us straight on that.

I think a serious issue that plagues these kinds of discussions is the lack of ground rules for the situation. We've all cited a wide variety of out-of-context examples that support our theories while disproving those who disagree with us. In the future, I suggest each post in these discussions lay down the ground rules for the scenario it discusses. This applies to all of us. Because when you start using examples that are out-of-context you can rationalize anything. If you're talking about craft designed for fleet operations, stick to fleet operations. Don't take a craft that was meant to operate in a fleet and then put it into battle without its fleet. If you're talking about craft designed to operate alone, then stick to those situations. Don't take a craft that was meant to operate singularly and force it to operate in a large group, etc. Otherwise, everything you say is just speculative fiction.

[Vagamus]

Originally posted by Second Chance
<snip> New thread or no answers. I'm not discussing this with you in here. Copy and paste if you must. You just wasted half a page of THIS one on a completely unrelated topic. I'm sure you spent a lot of time on it too... after already reading from two people now... that you should simply start a new thread.

Edit: BTW, less ad hom, more substance. Your counterpoints still don't exist, even if what i bring was partial opinion. (I gave you a link, maybe you should read it.)

My point is still solid, now make a new thread, or just shut your trap. (OOOO! He ad hom'd in return! OMG!)

[Second Chance]

Ok, that's fine. I guess I'm done here also. I've asked my questions and made my points. If someone wants to continue this topic in another thread, I'll get into it. If not, it's not worth making a big deal out of. I only debate out of a sense of reactive obligation anyway, so I won't clutter up this thread anymore.

[Red_Hex]

so. surlyben finally finished iwar huh? thats cool.

[Cougaris]

Please show me where you read that ship-of-the-line is a synonym for modern battleships (which are no longer in use either, but that's another story). Are you sure it was a book? Are you sure it wasn't nothing!

Ship of the Line is an acceptable term for any modern warship of substantial size and fighting capability. It does hark back to the age of sail and may seem archaic in its modern usage, but it is an acceptable term.

Definition - Ship of the Line (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ship+of+the+line&r=67)

This should be made in an OT thread, as mentioned, but I felt that point should be clarrified.

[hoom]

In a discussion about the differences between tactics etc in different eras of naval combat, to call any modern ship a "ship of the line" is a nonsense.

[Vagamus]

For the love of god, if you want to talk about this, make a new thread. *shakes head*

Ya know what... fine...

I'm not the one that derailed this thread, but i sure as hell am putting an end to it.

[RMSe17]

yea, the game was totally awesome, so much space to explore, and so much stuff to see, and the missions, so unique never know what to expect, and the mistery sorrounding the whole thing, which just deepens with entry to new systems!

The games that followed, like Freelancer, were nowhere near as exciting and unique

[King's Specter]

Congrats on completing the game! I'd love there to be more posts like this around here. :)

I'm still ticked about the ending of I-war! I just did what came natural when my fire-control went down: rammed the SOB with my aggressor shield! It worked too, but the ungrateful punks still washed me out and made me a garbage truck skipper. :mad:

[Nightwatch]

But thats just not heroic, maaaaan! :D