Add the ability to the Imperial Clipper carry a Fighter

[VAN LORD]

Please add Imperial Clipper to a group of ships capable of carrying a fighter.
This vehicle belongs to the category of "large ships" and in theory capable of carrying a fighter.
Otherwise, the preponderance of the forces extends to the side of the Federation, as there are in addition to Federal Corvette, this ability has a Federal Gunship.
Please, this ship really deserves this honor.


If this ship is in the list of "spacecraft carriers", but I know not fully, I apologize.

 

[Kaybe]

*sigh*

Listen ... ships with fighter bays are balanced with those fighter bays in mind. The Clipper is FAR too strong, agile and fast to be balanced for fighter support. This has been discussed time and time again by tons of people on the forums already. For the Clipper to be able to support a fighter bay, it would need a HUGE drop in both speed and agility. So unless you're willing to let the Clipper have a top boost speed around 375 m/s and half it's pitch speed, please stop requesting something would very obviously make this ship very overpowered.

 

[DragoonKnight]

Please add Imperial Clipper to a group of ships capable of carrying a fighter.
This vehicle belongs to the category of "large ships" and in theory capable of carrying a fighter.
Otherwise, the preponderance of the forces extends to the side of the Federation, as there are in addition to Federal Corvette, this ability has a Federal Gunship.
Please, this ship really deserves this honor.


If this ship is in the list of "spacecraft carriers", but I know not fully, I apologize.

If you think the FGS is in any way Comparable to a Clipper, then perhaps you need to buy an FGS and fight a decent Clipper pilot. The Clipper will make short work of the FGS.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

And the Python!

Come 2.2, my do-anything Python will no longer be able to do anything!

Lol

Just kiddin' of course, the Python is already the most versatile ship by farcin ED. It's gotta have atleast one downside, or FD will nerf it again.

 

[Colossus1921]

The fuselage of the Clipper isn't wide enough to support a fighter bay. It widens slightly near where the wings flare out, but there still isn't enough meat there.

 

[VAN LORD]

I don't know how much the Imperial Clipper is stronger than FGS, because I use it only for space exploration (it was option to consider for the FDL, but in the end the choice fell on the Imperial Clipper).
Besides, I don't understand why Imperial Clipper should be limited in speed and (what even worse) maneuverability, while none of the ships of the 3rd class (Catter, Corvette, Anaconda) or any other ships, was not specified as subjects to parameters reduction.
The "fighter module" are occupies the internal space of the ship, only this already compensate for the additional firepower.
As was told, personally I use Imperial Clipper only as exploration ship, and the "fighter module" required to become more familiar with the surface of the planets (safety first).

 

[Chrystoph]

Just another example of the idiocy of ship design.

If we had actual "by volume" design, this would not be a problem because you would create the ship that fit your requirements instead of trying to incorporate feature based on the meta of "balance", which never is.

 

[Chrystoph]

Anaconda and Clipper start with the same base tonnage, but only one of them is legit to carry a fighter. The Keelback, at slightly less than half the Clipper, can carry.

If you really want balance, then the fighter carrying should be attached to Internal Compartments and bought, the same way as cargo.

 

[Lestat]

Can't aways get what you want. I think Frontier modeled the ships to have ship bays. So having a ship with out a Launch bay would be kinda funny.

 

[xondk]

Please add Imperial Clipper to a group of ships capable of carrying a fighter.
This vehicle belongs to the category of "large ships" and in theory capable of carrying a fighter.
Otherwise, the preponderance of the forces extends to the side of the Federation, as there are in addition to Federal Corvette, this ability has a Federal Gunship.
Please, this ship really deserves this honor.

If this ship is in the list of "spacecraft carriers", but I know not fully, I apologize.

Sorry, but the Imperial Clipper is already an insanely good ship for its cost, it is cheap, it is large, good cargo space, good weapons, good enough jump range, fast, it already has soo many advantages, python is better overall but costs significantly more, so yeah... Imperial Clipper is more then fine.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Anaconda and Clipper start with the same base tonnage, but only one of them is legit to carry a fighter. The Keelback, at slightly less than half the Clipper, can carry.

If you really want balance, then the fighter carrying should be attached to Internal Compartments and bought, the same way as cargo.

That isn't really how it works, there are big ships that aren't able to have a helipad, yet smaller ships then them that can have it, or make it a dock for a smaller boat, point is how a thing is designed means a heck of a lot.

If we went by that logic, then Python should be able to have fighters too, and sure, I enjoy my python, I would enjoy that a lot, but it wouldn't make much sense, but it sure as heck would make it a lot more powerful.

 

[Iskariot]

Just like with real life vehicles not all ships must necessarily be able to do everything, just because they are of a certain size.
The Clipper was just not designed to carry fighters by Gutamaya. That is simply what it is.

My Python is my favourite ship and it can't carry a fighter either. Too me that simply is what the Python is.
Faulcon Delacy never meant this ship to carry fighters.

If I can name one thing I think FD should really have done with the Clipper then that would be the ability to retract it's engine pods to make it possible for it to dock at medium pads.

I think it is a shame that the Python is the only medium pad option in that niche.
It needs a competitor and it is weird that Gutamaya would not have designed a sizeable trader that can dock with outposts.
Because of this the Empire is forced to use non-imperial designs to do certain transport jobs. This is of course intolerable.
Wait til the empress hears of this.

 

[JuicerPrime]

If I can name one thing I think FD should really have done with the Clipper then that would be the ability to retract it's engine pods to make it possible for it to dock at medium pads.

I think it is a shame that the Python is the only medium pad option in that niche.
It needs a competitor and it is weird that Gutamaya would not have designed a sizeable trader that can dock with outposts.

Now that's an idea I could happily get behind. I don't own a Clipper myself, but the fact that it's only its wingspan that's limiting its landing pad options is slightly depressing. It's a great ship otherwise (even if I only get to fly one during beta tests )

As for the fighter option, while it would be awesome I have to say - the Clipper is already a great multirole, fast, powerful and cheap for what it does compared to the Python and the Federal X-Ships. Adding a fighter to its options would maybe push it into the realm of being a bit OP. If they could fix the wingspan problem, that would make it a superlative Medium competitor to the Federal offerings I think.

 

[xondk]

Just like with real life vehicles not all ships must necessarily be able to do everything, just because they are of a certain size.
The Clipper was just not designed to carry fighters by Gutamaya. That is simply what it is.

My Python is my favourite ship and it can't carry a fighter either. Too me that simply is what the Python is.
Faulcon Delacy never meant this ship to carry fighters.

If I can name one thing I think FD should really have done with the Clipper then that would be the ability to retract it's engine pods to make it possible for it to dock at medium pads.

I think it is a shame that the Python is the only medium pad option in that niche.
It needs a competitor and it is weird that Gutamaya would not have designed a sizeable trader that can dock with outposts.
Because of this the Empire is forced to use non-imperial designs to do certain transport jobs. This is of course intolerable.
Wait til the empress hears of this.

Fairly sure it is too long?

 

[Chrystoph]

...because statistics are only for balance, as opposed to actually representing the size and capabilities of the ship...

>rolls eyes and shakes head<

I suppose that thinking in terms of real world physics is always going to be a disappointment here. Handwavium wins again.

 

[Colossus1921]

...because statistics are only for balance, as opposed to actually representing the size and capabilities of the ship...

>rolls eyes and shakes head<

I suppose that thinking in terms of real world physics is always going to be a disappointment here. Handwavium wins again.

*sigh*
It's not "handwavium." It's the fact that the narrow fuselage of the ship isn't wide enough to fit a fighter bay. Yes, the Clipper starts out at the same mass as the anaconda, but the anaconda's mass is all centered on it's main hull, beefing out it's width by a considerable amount, whereas the Clipper has the wings and engine pods, leaving it with a narrow, sleeker-looking main hull. Unfortunately, there isn't the room there to mount a fighter bay, so it can't have one. You were looking for an in-universe explanation. You have one. Chill.

 

[Chrystoph]

*sigh*
It's not "handwavium." It's the fact that the narrow fuselage of the ship isn't wide enough to fit a fighter bay. Yes, the Clipper starts out at the same mass as the anaconda, but the anaconda's mass is all centered on it's main hull, beefing out it's width by a considerable amount, whereas the Clipper has the wings and engine pods, leaving it with a narrow, sleeker-looking main hull. Unfortunately, there isn't the room there to mount a fighter bay, so it can't have one. You were looking for an in-universe explanation. You have one. Chill.

Yes, that is handwavium because your "explanation" doesn't deal with volume provided by a base hull. What it does is to use the model as the basis for your argument. In effect, you are throwing out the actual physics of ship design to justify a game balance decision.

1 ton of hull produces 135 liters of volume in which to build a ship. Unless you want to claim that the a universal constant like that doesn't apply, you already HAVE thrown out any believable basis for making a decision.

It's ok, I'll "chill" while you come up with some other "explanation" for why I can fit a 160t of cargo, 128t of it in one module, but cannot carry a 50t Eagle fighter. Just to foil your next argument in advance, most shipbuilding I have seen uses a 10% rule for dedicated hangars, so that means the Eagle would need 55t.

Lastly, I notice that you failed to address why a Keelback would be able to carry a fighter. Oh, wait, would that be because your argument fails when you have to address ALL of the cited points?

 

[Section47ABH]

1 ton of hull produces 135 liters of volume in which to build a ship. Unless you want to claim that the a universal constant like that doesn't apply, you already HAVE thrown out any believable basis for making a decision.

Shape matters, though. Especially when you're cutting openings in said shapes and fitting other things inside with the ability to come and go as needed. Shape, indeed, matters considerably more than mass when it comes to how you can use the internal volume, and mass has only a tangential bearing on enclosed volume - which depends very heavily on shape (if you want to maximise tonnage for a given mass of ship, build it spherical with as thin a hull as you can structurally get away with. To reduce the volume engclosed, do it in separate pieces with spiky extrusions. The Imperial clipper is practically MADE to waste volume.)

(Oh, and 'tonnage' in shipping is a measure of usable internal volume, historically based on the size of the casks used for shipping wine. Which were called 'tuns' - it has nothing to do with the unit of weight/mass of the same name. If you want to know a ship's mass, you ask after its displacement, laden and unladen.)

 

[Chrystoph]

Shape matters, though. Especially when you're cutting openings in said shapes and fitting other things inside with the ability to come and go as needed. Shape, indeed, matters considerably more than mass when it comes to how you can use the internal volume, and mass has only a tangential bearing on enclosed volume - which depends very heavily on shape (if you want to maximise tonnage for a given mass of ship, build it spherical with as thin a hull as you can structurally get away with. To reduce the volume engclosed, do it in separate pieces with spiky extrusions. The Imperial clipper is practically MADE to waste volume.)

(Oh, and 'tonnage' in shipping is a measure of usable internal volume, historically based on the size of the casks used for shipping wine. Which were called 'tuns' - it has nothing to do with the unit of weight/mass of the same name. If you want to know a ship's mass, you ask after its displacement, laden and unladen.)

Thanks for making the effort, but your entire argument is backwards. Volume is determined by the amount of framework you have available, in other words, base mass. While shape is indeed of import, you cannot pare away at the volume and maintain the same equation. That is why I say that the entire prior argument is about game balance and not founded in good science.

I will agree that you can create spaces in the volume that may not have as much practical use as other configurations, but that cannot function as an argument when you look at the list of ships that are being allowed to base a fighter.

As to your comment about a sphere, sorry, but the most efficient shape is a box created from right angles. It doesn't have to be a cube, although that is the standard for such measurements. If you actually look at the Clipper, the rear 2/3 are a large rectangular box, presumably where the majority of the volume is. After all, a Size 7 Internal must fit into the ship somewhere.

You are correct in your definition of where usage of tun as a measurement started from, although the more accurate measurement of volume involves a long ton, which is the amount of space one ton of sea water occupies. The reason for that is that tuns were not a normalized unit of measure because each barrel maker had their own "standard" due to the lack of normalized measurements, which did not evolve until the rule of Henry I (1100 - 1135). Earlier periods had standard nomenclature, but did not have standard values.

 

[StiTch]

*sigh*
It's not "handwavium." It's the fact that the narrow fuselage of the ship isn't wide enough to fit a fighter bay. Yes, the Clipper starts out at the same mass as the anaconda, but the anaconda's mass is all centered on it's main hull, beefing out it's width by a considerable amount, whereas the Clipper has the wings and engine pods, leaving it with a narrow, sleeker-looking main hull. Unfortunately, there isn't the room there to mount a fighter bay, so it can't have one. You were looking for an in-universe explanation. You have one. Chill.

Actually this bit has kind of fallen apart:

The image is small but if you look, the fuselarge width difference between the gunship and iClipper is actually pretty tiny. Take away the space in the gunship that the thrusters would use, remember the fighter bays are C5 and therefore from a raw figures perspective takes 32T out of the Gunship's 168T capacity, and it's not safe to assume the iClipper couldn't fit one.

From a "lore" (or "handwavium" as you see fit) perspective, ships that launch SLFs can do so because they already have the bay. Now that is what fell apart, because the assumption's been around that the bays are already in the ship and take up space in some manner. They're being asked to consume a C5 slot now for the fighter bay, meaning that these ships can do so purely because they happen to have a hole in the ship the SLF can be deployed from. The same hole could conceivably be made in any ship, and you're no longer ruining the pre-defined internal distribution of ships.

So why don't they? Of course it's gameplay. Of course it's handwavium. Does that mean it's a bad thing? I'll let the jury decide, but as a dedicated iClipper pilot, it's a good thing. Ships with SLFs tend to be slower ships that need an agile companion either to prevent themselves being utterly outmanoeuvered by a single smaller ship, or to supply protection to trade ships. Strictly speaking the iClipper has a poor agility thanks to the weak lateral/vertical thrusters and mediocre inertia control, but its speed and pitching are already massive, and a competent pilot can take advantage of this to make it a much harder ship to outmanoeuvre than any other large ship. A SLF isn't required for it to be effective, and would simply make it too potent.

On a side note, the C7 SLF bays are utilised by iCutter etc. for bays that employ two fighters. As the iClipper has a C7 slot it would also mean making exceptions or allowing it the double SLF bay, which frankly would not go down well from any perspective.

I am gutted the iCutter is the only Empire ship with SLFs, but I'd rather see a new Empire ship that can launch them over changing the iClipper (agility can do what it wants provided the Gutamaya speed stays )

 

[VAN LORD]

The Clipper was just not designed to carry fighters by Gutamaya. That is simply what it is.

True. Sad, but true.

Well, I have to buy a Cutter, and fit it for galaxy exploration.

Bye-bye Clipper!
I liked your cockpit and the hull style. It's too bad you are not intended for the galactic exploration. We was a good friends, but the odds are against us.