Centurions are worthless in combat.

[JohnBWatson]

The Chasm is a much rarer fighter than the Centurion, and a multipurpose gunship is going to lose to a space superiority fighter most of the time regardless. Put in modern terms, China has more people than America, but it's unreasonable to suggest that they would definitely and easily win a war between the two powers based solely on the fact that a J - 20 could defeat an F - 18 in single combat.

I'm not basing this on AI results, by the way. Both gunships have forward firing weapons only, so two reasonably piloted Centurions gain a large advantage over one reasonably piloted Chasm.

[Atarlost]

The Chasm is a much rarer fighter than the Centurion, and a multipurpose gunship is going to lose to a space superiority fighter most of the time regardless. Put in modern terms, China has more people than America, but it's unreasonable to suggest that they would definitely and easily win a war between the two powers based solely on the fact that a J - 20 could defeat an F - 18 in single combat.

I'm not basing this on AI results, by the way. Both gunships have forward firing weapons only, so two reasonably piloted Centurions gain a large advantage over one reasonably piloted Chasm.

The bolded is absolutely false in Transcendence. Mounting a launcher on a spaceframe does not make it a worse dogfighter. The Britannia outclasses the Centurion in almost every way. The Centurion has the same max turn speed and acceleration. The Britannia has a higher top speed. The Britannia has higher turn acceleration. The The Britannia does more damage (exclusive of missiles) and greater range in a better damage type. Britannia has better armor and better shields.

Having a forward firing weapon doesn't make two ships equal. Chasms massively outmaneuver Centurions with twice the turn acceleration and twice the max rotation rate. Brits match their turn acceleration, but not their max rotation rate. Chasms accelerate poorly, but if the AI weren't a flaming pile of crap that doesn't understand newtonian space combat acceleration would not matter nearly as much as maneuverability for dogfighting. It helps dodge, but you can't dodge and fire at the same time with a fixed axis weapon.

R1 shields are tissue paper against positron cannons: an average damage shot will deal 50% more damage than the shield's max HP. Cydonian shields can stand up to 8 shots from a TeV 9. Blast Plate dies in exactly 5 average damage shots from an Ares positron cannon. Tharsis Plate can stand up to 66 shots from a TeV 9. The two guns fire at the same base rate, but the Centurion has a higher firerateadjust. The Chasm gets off 4 shots for every 3 a Centurion gets off.

Two Centurions die in 12 shots. The Chasm dies in 72 shots. If they have the same hit rate and the Chasm focuses fire the first Centurion to die will get 4.5 hits and the second will get 9 hits. 13.5<72 Chasm wins. The Chasm needs to miss at least 7 shots in 8 if the Centurions never miss. Failing to get a shot off due to dodging counts as a miss. Also, the Centurions will tend to take hits predominantly on their forward segment while hits against the Chasm will be evenly distributed among its non-front segments. The Chasm turns too quickly for them to concentrate on a non-front segment and if they concentrate on the front segment they'll be bunched up in front of him and dodging won't be as effective. Remember, the Chasm turns faster. If a Centurion has to make a 90 degree turn to switch from dodging to attacking the Chasm can make a 180 degree turn to pick another target in the same time span.

With three Centurions the third Centurion to die gets off 13.5 hits. 27<72 Chasm still wins. If the Chasm is unable to focus fire they may manage closer to 40.5 hits, still significantly less than the Chasm can survive.

With four Centurions the fourth Centurion gets off 18 hits. 45<72 Chasm still wins. If the Chasm can't focus fire at all they can approach victory, but not reach it. At the end one runs out of hitpoints first and the Chasm has about 5 shots worth of HP left.

With five Centurions the fifth Centurion gets off 22.5 hits. 67.5<72 Chasm still wins if it can focus fire. I can buy dodging maybe making up the difference at this point, but if the Centurions are preventing the Chasm from focusing fire they must be forcing it to retarget and it will retarget on someone facing it, which means the Chasm loses the benefit of focusing on one Centurion but gains the benefit of focusing on one armor segment.

Six Centurions handily beat a Chasm.

Centurions only outnumber Chasms by as much as they do because they've been in production longer. Assuming the Ares aren't stupid they will shift production from Sandstorms to Chasms as quickly as possible. The Ares have more military industry than the Commonwealth because they aren't trying to fight a war without economic impact. The Commonwealth cannot build five Centurions for every Chasm in the long run and certainly can't put pilots in them, particularly since this number can't count any Centurions built for the Sung front or garrisoning rear areas. You know, things the voters actually care about since they're not at all invested in the Ares war.

The /X does better, but even though its default sovereign is Fleet it isn't actually ever used by the Fleet. It appears to be a Ringer variant. It apparently isn't in production at Gunsan since the Centurion chimeras don't mount the graviton weapon the Chimera virus makes from the Britannia's starcannon.

I'm not going to work the math for the Brit right now, but it has a huge advantage in having a weapon that does 1.07% rated damage against Tharsis Plate instead of 8.5% rated damage.

[JohnBWatson]

The bolded is absolutely false in Transcendence. Mounting a launcher on a spaceframe does not make it a worse dogfighter. The Britannia outclasses the Centurion in almost every way. The Centurion has the same max turn speed and acceleration. The Britannia has a higher top speed. The Britannia has higher turn acceleration. The The Britannia does more damage (exclusive of missiles) and greater range in a better damage type. Britannia has better armor and better shields.

Not a worse dogfighter, but a less efficient one. WMD weaponry is a needless cost on a ship designed for space superiority, as you claim it is.

R1 shields are tissue paper against positron cannons: an average damage shot will deal 50% more damage than the shield's max HP. Cydonian shields can stand up to 8 shots from a TeV 9. Blast Plate dies in exactly 5 average damage shots from an Ares positron cannon. Tharsis Plate can stand up to 66 shots from a TeV 9. The two guns fire at the same base rate, but the Centurion has a higher firerateadjust. The Chasm gets off 4 shots for every 3 a Centurion gets off.

George has already stated that Firerateadj for the Fleet Centurion is getting removed, IIRC.

Two Centurions die in 12 shots. The Chasm dies in 72 shots. If they have the same hit rate and the Chasm focuses fire the first Centurion to die will get 4.5 hits and the second will get 9 hits. 13.5<72 Chasm wins. The Chasm needs to miss at least 7 shots in 8 if the Centurions never miss. Failing to get a shot off due to dodging counts as a miss. Also, the Centurions will tend to take hits predominantly on their forward segment while hits against the Chasm will be evenly distributed among its non-front segments. The Chasm turns too quickly for them to concentrate on a non-front segment and if they concentrate on the front segment they'll be bunched up in front of him and dodging won't be as effective. Remember, the Chasm turns faster. If a Centurion has to make a 90 degree turn to switch from dodging to attacking the Chasm can make a 180 degree turn to pick another target in the same time span.

With three Centurions the third Centurion to die gets off 13.5 hits. 27<72 Chasm still wins. If the Chasm is unable to focus fire they may manage closer to 40.5 hits, still significantly less than the Chasm can survive.

With four Centurions the fourth Centurion gets off 18 hits. 45<72 Chasm still wins. If the Chasm can't focus fire at all they can approach victory, but not reach it. At the end one runs out of hitpoints first and the Chasm has about 5 shots worth of HP left.

With five Centurions the fifth Centurion gets off 22.5 hits. 67.5<72 Chasm still wins if it can focus fire. I can buy dodging maybe making up the difference at this point, but if the Centurions are preventing the Chasm from focusing fire they must be forcing it to retarget and it will retarget on someone facing it, which means the Chasm loses the benefit of focusing on one Centurion but gains the benefit of focusing on one armor segment.

Six Centurions handily beat a Chasm.

You assume a Chasm can always focus fire, and that shields don't regenerate. Both crippling fallacies. Multiple ships with shields means that some can draw back while others engage. Unless the Chasm pilot is utterly perfect, his own fire will be distributed across multiple shields, greatly enhancing the Centurions' survivability.

Centurions only outnumber Chasms by as much as they do because they've been in production longer. Assuming the Ares aren't stupid they will shift production from Sandstorms to Chasms as quickly as possible. The Ares have more military industry than the Commonwealth because they aren't trying to fight a war without economic impact. The Commonwealth cannot build five Centurions for every Chasm in the long run and certainly can't put pilots in them, particularly since this number can't count any Centurions built for the Sung front or garrisoning rear areas. You know, things the voters actually care about since they're not at all invested in the Ares war.

The Militia takes civilian recruits, presumably bringing their own ships, and station guards are generally hired by the station, not the CW as a whole. Aftermarket Centurion sales(similar to how US police forces acquired MRAPs) explains their presence in the New Beyond. Centurions thus appear to be built specifically for the war.

The /X does better, but even though its default sovereign is Fleet it isn't actually ever used by the Fleet. It appears to be a Ringer variant. It apparently isn't in production at Gunsan since the Centurion chimeras don't mount the graviton weapon the Chimera virus makes from the Britannia's starcannon.

The /X is an aftermarket modification, not a production variant. It's intended to be made from Centurions fitted with a 250MW reactor and a Starcannon. No idea how that's supposed to be cost efficient, but I digress.

[Atarlost]

You assume a Chasm can always focus fire, and that shields don't regenerate. Both crippling fallacies. Multiple ships with shields means that some can draw back while others engage. Unless the Chasm pilot is utterly perfect, his own fire will be distributed across multiple shields, greatly enhancing the Centurions' survivability.

The Centurion's shields don't regenerate. Either they have not been hit yet, in which case they can't regenerate because they're at max HP, or they don't regenerate because the Chasm drops them in one hit.

If the Centurion doesn't focus fire he might only need to be outnumbered five to one. I already went over that too.

As to the missiles, it's more reasonable to say it's absurd to waste a tracking/fragmentation missile on a capital ship because all fragmenting weapons except the ares micronuke and warhammer are lousy against capital ships and optimized against swarms and tracking missiles are useful against small, fast ships and unnecessary against large capital ships.

You're just making absurd statements and making arguments that have already been answered.

[JohnBWatson]

The Centurion's shields don't regenerate. Either they have not been hit yet, in which case they can't regenerate because they're at max HP, or they don't regenerate because the Chasm drops them in one hit.

Did you not just say they withstand 2 hits? Be consistent.

If the Centurion doesn't focus fire he might only need to be outnumbered five to one. I already went over that too.

No, you didn't.

As to the missiles, it's more reasonable to say it's absurd to waste a tracking/fragmentation missile on a capital ship because all fragmenting weapons except the ares micronuke and warhammer are lousy against capital ships and optimized against swarms and tracking missiles are useful against small, fast ships and unnecessary against large capital ships.

Most powerful warheads presently used are AOE in some capacity. Furthermore, the only efficient use of AOE, on the assumption that it is not merely a side benefit, is against swarms of Sandstorms, and you claim the Brit is being built for a time in which they've been phased out.

You're just making absurd statements and making arguments that have already been answered.

Insults do nothing to enhance your argument.

[AssumedPseudonym]

Did you not just say they withstand 2 hits? Be consistent.

 He was.

R1 shields are tissue paper against positron cannons: an average damage shot will deal 50% more damage than the shield's max HP.

The Centurion's shields don't regenerate. Either they have not been hit yet, in which case they can't regenerate because they're at max HP, or they don't regenerate because the Chasm drops them in one hit.

 That sounds consistent to me.

If the Centurion doesn't focus fire he might only need to be outnumbered five to one. I already went over that too.

No, you didn't.

 Actually he did. …Sorta.

With five Centurions the fifth Centurion gets off 22.5 hits. 67.5<72 Chasm still wins if it can focus fire. I can buy dodging maybe making up the difference at this point, but if the Centurions are preventing the Chasm from focusing fire they must be forcing it to retarget and it will retarget on someone facing it, which means the Chasm loses the benefit of focusing on one Centurion but gains the benefit of focusing on one armor segment.

 It makes more sense if you consider that he meant “Chasm” in the post you responded to. Everyone suffers typos.

You're just making absurd statements and making arguments that have already been answered.

Insults do nothing to enhance your argument.

 That was a statement of opinion, and at the very least the second half of it was accurate. I found nothing insulting about that statement. It may have been a bit blunt, but it wasn’t offensive.
 Your rebuttals in this case were entirely incorrect, which could have been avoided with even a quick reread of Atarlost’s post, though I’ll admit the typo on his part naming the wrong ship did complicate things.

 Please note that this is a game. Regardless of lore, headcanon, speculation, or application of real-world common sense, the only thing that matters is what is actually in the game. There are no pilots and there is no production of spaceships, whether Commonwealth or Ares. What there are are graphical representations of ships being controlled by various AI algorithms, absolute numbers to represent shields and armor hit points and resistances, and a random number generator controlling how much damage each shot does. Going strictly by the numbers — which is all Transcendence, as a program, is capable of doing — the Centurion is undeniably outclassed by the Chasm, and vastly so. Even though the intro screen isn’t necessarily the best representation of in-game mechanics, it’s still plenty good enough to unequivocally demonstrate that fact.

[Song]

Moderator Mode Engaged:

My own thoughts on threads like this have been made clear in the past, and this one's getting a bit heated. While circular arguments are merely annoying and derailing, they're not inherently against the rules. However, personal stuff should be avoided because it gets things a lot closer to crossing lines. Keep it nice, or the thread will be locked.

[JohnBWatson]

 He was.

R1 shields are tissue paper against positron cannons: an average damage shot will deal 50% more damage than the shield's max HP.

Ah, I misread. Still, a shield can regenerate after it goes down, it just requires more time. In a large scale battle, it's hard enough to track a single target perfectly that Chasms are not as immune to retaliation from Centurions as he claims.

 That was a statement of opinion, and at the very least the second half of it was accurate. I found nothing insulting about that statement. It may have been a bit blunt, but it wasn’t offensive.

Did it contribute to the debate in any capacity? What was the purpose or intent of the statement?

 

Please note that this is a game. Regardless of lore, headcanon, speculation, or application of real-world common sense, the only thing that matters is what is actually in the game. There are no pilots and there is no production of spaceships, whether Commonwealth or Ares. What there are are graphical representations of ships being controlled by various AI algorithms, absolute numbers to represent shields and armor hit points and resistances, and a random number generator controlling how much damage each shot does. Going strictly by the numbers — which is all Transcendence, as a program, is capable of doing — the Centurion is undeniably outclassed by the Chasm, and vastly so. Even though the intro screen isn’t necessarily the best representation of in-game mechanics, it’s still plenty good enough to unequivocally demonstrate that fact.

I'm not claiming that a Centurion is superior to a Chasm, I'm arguing against Atar's claim that the Britannia has an identical role to the Centurion and was built for the sole purpose of countering the Chasm, based upon the facts that every single time we see it, it is serving in the roles I claimed it was intended for, not once does it fill the role Atar claimed it did, and its equipment is clearly set up for a different role, and against his claim that the Chasm is the single greatest threat faced by the Fleet, based on its lack of ability to efficiently attack CSCs and Aquilae, and the fact that sending them outward in larger groups would be very logistics - intensive, as well as the fact that the Sandstorm, which he claims they are built to replace, is used very differently, and in scouting roles that the Chasm would not fill as efficiently.

[sun1404]

while its true Centurions' shields can regenerate after collapse, the Centurions can hardly use this to their advantage. As a Chasm can down an R1 in one hit, and fires much faster than the R1 recovers from collapse, a Chasm can probably strip at least four Centurions' shields before the first one is back online. If Centurions retreat to try to recover their shields, they expose their back to the Chasm while rendering their own weapon useless. even if you swarm a Chasm with four or five Centurions, the Chasm can fire at each one once then concentrate on the last, which would turn it into a 1 to 1 fight effectively. I wouldn't dare pilot a Centurion against a Chasm, even if the Chasm has the game's current AI. I wouldn't dare even if four friends are going with me.

Britannias, on the other hand, can down a Chasm's shield much quicker, and survive a Chasm's assault much longer. I imagine if three Brits concentrate their Katanas and missiles on a Chasm, they can beat it without casualties.

Your arguments rely on two flawed assumptions: 1. The role you assign to each ship is true, and each role's advantages and disadvantages you stated is true. 2. Each ship must fit only in one role and can therefore only be used effectively in that role.

I cannot say why the Brits was built, but probably simply because the Fleet needs a new ship in place of the obsolete Centurions. (And yes, the Centurion is obsolete.) But the Brits certainly do very well in the Centurion's role. Whatever a Centurion can do, a Brits can, whatever a squad of Centurions can do, a smaller squad of Brits can.


As for Chasms replacing the Sandstorms, well, I think they can. Sandstorms are only effective when sent in groups, from gameplay experience I'd say at least seven Sandstorms are needed to kill a target one Chasm can. In every cases where a squad of Sandstorms are used now, one Chasm can be used for better results.


And as for the single greatest threat argument, the Chasm's incapability to harm a CSC doesn't make it impossible to be the threat. Chasms are very effective for destroying gunships, which are like the arms of a CSC. While they may not destroy a CSC, they can make it useless.

If threat level is based only on damage/cost of a ship, then the Tundra is surely the single greatest threat. But a Tundra cannot survive flying past a CSC. A squad of Tundras also cannot, unless they shoot at CSC from afar with no retaliations. A Tundra and a Chasm, on the other hand, stands a chance.

[Kourtious]

Hello, I have my own opinions on what roles these warships field. Oh btw, I am the creator of this thread, so keep it nice. I don't want to see my own thread locked.

Commonwealth Fleet:
CSC [insert name]-Mobile HQs that are tasked with long-range deployments and logistics. During combat, the armor of a CSC are designed to resist thermonuclear artillery and bombs. It's 4 armaments are designed to protect itself from faster, smaller gunships; however, it is ineffective against hunter killers. For example, the Deimos & Phobos.

Centurion/X-Multi-Role Gunships that are can everything moderately, but does not excel at anything. It is very mobile and can dodge fight very well. However, the games coding limit this potential. Its more notable roles are as escorts and guards.

Britannias-Powerful Hunter-Killers/Frigates that are much more expensive, but dangerous than its weaker multi-role brethen, the Centurion. Its weaponry are designed to crush whatever the Centurions cannot handle effectively. Some examples: The Deimos, The Phobos, The Cometfall. It is also the rival counterpart to the Ares Chasm. Where else the Ares use their Chasms to puncture shields, the CSC use their Britannias to puncture armor.

Aquila-Rare Destroyers that are designed to partake in lasting fight. Its weaponry are powerful enough to stand toe to toe against a Deimos. The Aquila also fills the role of artillery, able to take down fortresses with its Nami Heavy Launcher.

Ares Orthodoxy:
Sandstorms-Swarm Fighter that are meant to distract incoming fire and raid civilian convoys. Its weaponry and armor are weak, but powerful enough to scare most civilian warships.

Tundra-The counterpart to the Commmonwealth Centurion in terms of dodgefighting. However, it also has bunker buster weaponry that makes this ship able to punch a class above its weight.

Chasm-Ares' multi-role frigate. Its weaponry are designed to destroy shields and render armor resistances useless. It is very powerful in the eyes of the beholder.

Cometfall-Very Long Range artillery. It is able to destroy massive infrastructure within minutes.

Deimos-Mobile Cannons designed to protect important bases from threats.

Phobos-Dreadnaughts that are designed for space superiority and are often tasked to destroy CSC.

I got lazy at the end, but this is my opinion.

[Atarlost]

That's very unsubstantiated.

The Centurion/x is not a Commonwealth ship. Only the ringers and Taikon use it. The basic Centurion is not able to do everything moderately. Even when it wasn't obsolete (or against the less advanced Sung) it's not capable of anti-capital or anti-station missions. It's a pure space superiority design, that is a gunship for killing other gunships. It lacks any weapon effective against capital ships or stations. The Ronin C is the multi-role gunship on the Sung front. Even though it's even older than the Centurion it has an integral launcher, giving it some anti-capital and anti-station capability.

The Chasm and Britannia cannot possibly be multi-role frigates. Most obviously, they're not frigates. The Britannia is vaguely multi-role, but if you look at it's loadout it doesn't have an integral launcher. It has an external missile pod. It's also restricted to an anti-gunship optimized missile. They at least do something to capital ships when not being buggy, but they're very much a case of pounding in nails with a screwdriver. A proper multi-role gunship at its technology level should mount the NAMI heavy launcher, Rasiermesser launcher, or Makayev launcher. The Chasm isn't multi-role at all without any anti-capital or anti-station capability whatsoever. It's another pure space superiority design.

The Aquilas aren't destroyers and can't partake in a lasting fight. Destroyer has been misused a lot in Transcendence, but it's an anti-gunship or anti-missile role evolved from the term's genesis as the "torpedo boat destroyer." The Aquila isn't one of the ships misnamed as a destroyer so there's no excuse for using the term. The Aquila has very poor defenses for its size and the additional turrets visible on the model put it into an extreme glass cannon design paradigm.

The Tundra isn't anything like the Centurion. The lightning cannon is there for forms sake and the whole point of the design is the micronuke cannon. The micronuke cannon is heavily anti-capital and anti-station optimized. That the Tundra can fight Centurions is proof that Centurions are obsolete, not that the Tundra is a space superiority design. The modern Centurion equivalent would be a Britannia not mounting an external missile pod and would eat Tundras for lunch.

The Deimos isn't defensive. It's a general purpose battleship/cruiser design. flotillas are seen offensively in flotilla strength in the unknown hostile mission. They do suffer from some severe AI issues against CSCs and stations because they were given the AI mode best suited to them against fast gunships like the player's, but that's the AI's problem not the ship's.

The Phobos is not a space superiority design. For one, based on its derivation space superiority is a fighter/gunship role. What you actually mean would be a battleship role based on the naval derivation of capital ship terminology. More to the point, the Deimos is much better. The Deimos's main gun has a fair bit of swivel, allowing it to hit mobile targets like Aquilas. The Phobos has a fixed spinal weapon better suited to station bombardment rather than fighting other capital ships.

[Kourtious]

Woah! What is with the criticism?

That's very unsubstantiated +

First, I am not interested in participating in your flame war against JohnBwatson, who happens to be proficient in flame wars. I said this was my opinion and therefore my POV. No need for you to criticize it so severely or even criticize.

Second, I don't have to post evidence to my own opinion. In fact, some of your statements has no evidence.

The Centurion/x is not a Commonwealth ship. Only the ringers and Taikon use it.

Wait what? Doesn't the CSC use Centurions and aren't the Taikons in human space that is controlled by the Commonwealth. Therefore they have to abide by the Commonwealth laws? Oh, I forgot. The Commonwealth Fleet all have the same paint job. Doesn't this naturally assume that Centurions are part of the Commonwealth Fleet and therefore under the Commonwealth? In addition, most equipment on the Centurion are patented by companies with military contracts with the Commonwealth. In conclusion, the Centurion is part of the Commonwealth Fleet. Commonwealth ship = Commonwealth Fleet, if your stating if the ship is part of the Commonwealth.

A proper multi-role gunship at its technology level should mount the NAMI heavy launcher, Rasiermesser launcher, or Makayev launcher. The Chasm isn't multi-role at all without any anti-capital or anti-station capability whatsoever. It's another pure space superiority design.

Okay. I respect your opinion, but since your trying degrade my opinion I have to say this: Where in the transcendence universe states what a multi-role gunship is? There isn't! So don't criticize others and be a hypocrite -> "That's very unsubstantiated"
In addition, the way George classes his ships are misleading. Some ships just don't fit their name specifies their role as. However because Transcendence was made by George, ship classification is pretty messed up and may mislead the eyes of the beholder.
Therefore this statement is false in my eyes.

The Chasm and Britannia cannot possibly be multi-role frigates.

And so is this statement.

The Aquilas aren't destroyers

And etc.

However! There are things I agree with, because I stated before: "I got lazy at the end, but this is my opinion."

Lastly, I hate when people disclaim an entire article with one sentence, then post statements that make one a hypocrite. This directly insults my pride when I put effort(though little) into writing that post. To settle this disagreement, I want either an apology or no comment to this post. If you won't flame, I won't flame. Let's keep this thread simple or emotions would be poured upon this thread.

[JohnBWatson]

Some info before we get started:

Code: Select all

Sandstorm equipment cost = 6,000

Chasm equipment cost = 234000

1 Chasm construction  cost ≈ 39 Sandstorm construction cost

Centurion equipment cost = 24000

Britannia equipment cost = 99800 + cost of additional ammo

1 Britannia construction cost - cost of additional ammo ≈ 4 Centurion construction cost

---

while its true Centurions' shields can regenerate after collapse, the Centurions can hardly use this to their advantage. As a Chasm can down an R1 in one hit, and fires much faster than the R1 recovers from collapse, a Chasm can probably strip at least four Centurions' shields before the first one is back online. If Centurions retreat to try to recover their shields, they expose their back to the Chasm while rendering their own weapon useless. even if you swarm a Chasm with four or five Centurions, the Chasm can fire at each one once then concentrate on the last, which would turn it into a 1 to 1 fight effectively. I wouldn't dare pilot a Centurion against a Chasm, even if the Chasm has the game's current AI. I wouldn't dare even if four friends are going with me.

You severely underestimate dodging and actual tactics.

Britannias, on the other hand, can down a Chasm's shield much quicker, and survive a Chasm's assault much longer. I imagine if three Brits concentrate their Katanas and missiles on a Chasm, they can beat it without casualties.

A single Brit can kill a Chasm without casualties.

Your arguments rely on two flawed assumptions: 1. The role you assign to each ship is true, and each role's advantages and disadvantages you stated is true. 2. Each ship must fit only in one role and can therefore only be used effectively in that role.

Then state why they are flawed.

I cannot say why the Brits was built, but probably simply because the Fleet needs a new ship in place of the obsolete Centurions. (And yes, the Centurion is obsolete.) But the Brits certainly do very well in the Centurion's role. Whatever a Centurion can do, a Brits can, whatever a squad of Centurions can do, a smaller squad of Brits can.

Centurions can defeat wings of Sandstorms that try to scout out the carriers, escort transports against Tundras, and effectively raid Ares freighters and outposts. Those are all useful tasks.

As for Chasms replacing the Sandstorms, well, I think they can. Sandstorms are only effective when sent in groups, from gameplay experience I'd say at least seven Sandstorms are needed to kill a target one Chasm can. In every cases where a squad of Sandstorms are used now, one Chasm can be used for better results.

Look at what Sandstorms are used for. A Chasm cannot be as effective a scout due to its higher cost; while a Sandstorm squadron can leave a few units behind to cover the rest, a Chasm scout of the same cost as a sandstorm squadron would effectively be alone. Escorting Polars on their trips would be much more costly due to their shields, logistical needs, and power consumption, and the number of Chasms that could be used, even rounded up to 1, would be unable to comprehensively react to a multi - pronged attack. The current generation of Outposts would need to be refitted to service Chasms and would cost vastly more to maintain, to guard, and to lose.

It's simply not feasible.

If threat level is based only on damage/cost of a ship, then the Tundra is surely the single greatest threat. But a Tundra cannot survive flying past a CSC. A squad of Tundras also cannot, unless they shoot at CSC from afar with no retaliations. A Tundra and a Chasm, on the other hand, stands a chance.

The Chasm is a useful ship, but not a paradigm - altering one. It'd only be somewhat more difficult to destroy a Chasm squadron escorted with X amount of Chasms than to destroy one protected by a roughly cost - proportional amount of Sandstorms.

---

Commonwealth Fleet:

CSC [insert name] -Mobile HQs that are tasked with long-range deployments and logistics. During combat, the armor of a CSC are designed to resist thermonuclear artillery and bombs. It's 4 armaments are designed to protect itself from faster, smaller gunships; however, it is ineffective against hunter killers. For example, the Deimos & Phobos.

Centurion/X -Multi-Role Gunships that are can everything moderately, but does not excel at anything. It is very mobile and can dodge fight very well. However, the games coding limit this potential. Its more notable roles are as escorts and guards.

Britannias -Powerful Hunter-Killers/Frigates that are much more expensive, but dangerous than its weaker multi-role brethen, the Centurion. Its weaponry are designed to crush whatever the Centurions cannot handle effectively. Some examples: The Deimos, The Phobos, The Cometfall. It is also the rival counterpart to the Ares Chasm. Where else the Ares use their Chasms to puncture shields, the CSC use their Britannias to puncture armor.

Aquila -Rare Destroyers that are designed to partake in lasting fight. Its weaponry are powerful enough to stand toe to toe against a Deimos. The Aquila also fills the role of artillery, able to take down fortresses with its Nami Heavy Launcher.

Ares Orthodoxy:

Sandstorms -Swarm Fighter that are meant to distract incoming fire and raid civilian convoys. Its weaponry and armor are weak, but powerful enough to scare most civilian warships.

Tundra -The counterpart to the Commmonwealth Centurion in terms of dodgefighting. However, it also has bunker buster weaponry that makes this ship able to punch a class above its weight.

Chasm -Ares' multi-role frigate. Its weaponry are designed to destroy shields and render armor resistances useless. It is very powerful in the eyes of the beholder.

Cometfall -Very Long Range artillery. It is able to destroy massive infrastructure within minutes.

Deimos -Mobile Cannons designed to protect important bases from threats.

Phobos -Dreadnaughts that are designed for space superiority and are often tasked to destroy CSC.

Formatted post for readability.

I think the Aquila is primarily designed for attacking gunships due to the primarily antigunship munitions of the NAMI heavy and its many turrets, but 2 - 6 piercing guns with long range can kill a station quite fast, so artillery isn't impossible. The Deimos also strikes me as a workhorse vessel, designed for versatility.

---

The Centurion/x is not a Commonwealth ship. Only the ringers and Taikon use it. The basic Centurion is not able to do everything moderately. Even when it wasn't obsolete (or against the less advanced Sung) it's not capable of anti-capital or anti-station missions. It's a pure space superiority design, that is a gunship for killing other gunships. It lacks any weapon effective against capital ships or stations. The Ronin C is the multi-role gunship on the Sung front. Even though it's even older than the Centurion it has an integral launcher, giving it some anti-capital and anti-station capability.

The Centurion / X's Starcannon can hurt capships and stations more than most non - WMD weapons. It's not an incredibly practical weapon against very heavy targets, but it can be used effectively. The Ronin - C is far too weakly defended to be useful in the Outer Realm, at least for any faction that can't afford to lose personnel.

The Tundra isn't anything like the Centurion. The lightning cannon is there for forms sake and the whole point of the design is the micronuke cannon. The micronuke cannon is heavily anti-capital and anti-station optimized. That the Tundra can fight Centurions is proof that Centurions are obsolete, not that the Tundra is a space superiority design. The modern Centurion equivalent would be a Britannia not mounting an external missile pod and would eat Tundras for lunch.

The Tundra's lightning cannon, as I see it, is a means of defending itself in fights where its launcher is not usable due to friendly fire concerns, and to add some extra firepower on bombing runs. It's cheap enough that I can see it being an efficient acquisition. While it is primarily anticapital and antistation, its AOE weapon is good enough that it can be said to be antigunship too, which is why we see them guarding communes and attacking the player in random encounters.

---

[Song]

Moderative Action: Locked Thread

Right, that's enough for me. This thread has gotten extremely toxic, and it's not worth it for me to keep reading waiting for the inevitable moment that another personal attack is made. The point has been made: centurions suck and they need altering at some point, or better ingame clarification of why they suck. The lore around them is flexible and is likely to change in CSC America, which deals very heavily with the fleet tech progression. Mostly, it is unspecified, and a massive headcanon argument will not alter that. More importantly, the lore largely does not matter. If the ship sucks more than it's supposed to, it will get buffed. Eventually. Unless George forgets. If not, then it's working as intended. The massive flame war accomplishes nothing but burying what point this thread has.


Since telling people to 'be nice' doesn't seem to work, I'm locking this thread. You can continue the discussion in PMs if you want, or start a fleet headcanon thread (if you do the latter, then be nice about it). But this thread has run its course.