Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Captain Seafort » Tue May 24, 2011 4:37 pm

By which I of course mean this ship:

Image

Weird ship. FTL (which she definitely had) was either pretty slow interstellar or very quick intergalactic. Size was all over the shop, up to around 2.5km long. 150 Vipers, unknown number of shuttles and Landrams/Snowrams. Even their resilience is open to question - Galactica herself took an awful lot of damage, repeatedly, and kept going, while Atlantia went down very quickly.

So, what do you think?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15475
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Mikey » Tue May 24, 2011 4:56 pm

Perhaps as much or more than any other main ship in SF, the Battlestar was a creature of plot dictates.

Other than that, relatively unremarkable. A nice, straightforward design, fair armor, fair complement, fair PD armament.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Deepcrush » Tue May 24, 2011 5:25 pm

The Original Battlestar was a pretty good ship to my thoughts. We've seen that one Battlestar can face off pretty easily against a pair of Cylon Baseships. Fewer but superior fighters, fewer but superior guns and far far superior armor. We've seen the ship as a wreck and still able to fight.

I'd give it an 8/10

Two points of improvement would be more fighters and better AA.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Captain Seafort » Tue May 24, 2011 7:07 pm

Deepcrush wrote:We've seen that one Battlestar can face off pretty easily against a pair of Cylon Baseships.


Hardly. They can certainly destroy a couple of Basestars under the right conditions, but it took a combination of good tactics and a fair bit of luck on Cain's part to achieve that. He needed to a) draw off their fighter complements b) take out their PD and c) hit them with his entire arsenal and point-blank range. It was not in any way, shape or form evidence of how one Battlestar would fair against two Basestars under anything like normal circumstances.

Indeed, Tigh's briefing in The Hand of God very strongly suggests that, head-to-head, a Basestar is superior, probably due to her far superior fighter complement.

Two points of improvement would be more fighters and better AA.


Better AA would certainly help - it's the ship's biggest weakness. I don't think the fighter complement is that much of an issue though - half the complement of a Basestar, in a smaller ship with what appears to be superior ship-to-ship firepower is, I believe, respectable.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15475
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Deepcrush » Tue May 24, 2011 7:31 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:Hardly. They can certainly destroy a couple of Basestars under the right conditions, but it took a combination of good tactics and a fair bit of luck on Cain's part to achieve that. He needed to a) draw off their fighter complements b) take out their PD and c) hit them with his entire arsenal and point-blank range. It was not in any way, shape or form evidence of how one Battlestar would fair against two Basestars under anything like normal circumstances.

Indeed, Tigh's briefing in The Hand of God very strongly suggests that, head-to-head, a Basestar is superior, probably due to her far superior fighter complement.


Try this again since you just agreed with me while disagreeing with me while pointing to a battle where a single Battlestar destroyed two Basestars... You made zero sense.

The truth is that in battle, your ability against a threat isn't just based on ship stats but on the crew as well. We've seen that when used correctly a Battlestar is worth at least two Baseships.

Captain Seafort wrote:Better AA would certainly help - it's the ship's biggest weakness. I don't think the fighter complement is that much of an issue though - half the complement of a Basestar, in a smaller ship with what appears to be superior ship-to-ship firepower is, I believe, respectable.


With the size of the landing bays, the Battlestar should have been able to fit a lot more fighter craft.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Captain Seafort » Tue May 24, 2011 8:09 pm

Deepcrush wrote:Try this again since you just agreed with me while disagreeing with me while pointing to a battle where a single Battlestar destroyed two Basestars... You made zero sense.


You said that "one Battlestar can face off pretty easily against a pair of Cylon Baseships." While I don't dispute that it's possible for one Battlestar to take on two and destroy them, the bit I disagree strongly with is your statement that it would be easy, and the implication that any Battlestar could do it. The Cain Manoeuvre required a very unusual set of circumstances to succeed, and I think it says far, far more about Cain's tactical skills than it does about the relative strengths of a Battlestar and a Basestar.

With the size of the landing bays, the Battlestar should have been able to fit a lot more fighter craft.


Absolutely, but by the standards of her contemporaries she's pretty good - as I said, she's quite a bit smaller than a Basestar, is more oriented towards ship-to-ship combat, and still carries half the fighters.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15475
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Mark » Tue May 24, 2011 8:26 pm

Ok gang, here's my two cents worth.

First, lets all agree that the oGalactica had shitty AA coverage.

Second, we've seen that it was considered a toss up between a Battlestar or a Basestar insofar as it was critical that the big G get in that first strike, so much so that Starbuck and Apollo were sent to sabotage the Basestar. Adama strikes me as a highly conservitive commander, and tended to play it safe. That said, he may have been worried about the extent of damage the ship would sustain as well, but we saw the Galactica wasn't critically damaged, so I say she could have fought a second basestar....not nessessarily defeated it, but still able to give a good accounting of herself.

Now, Cain was the maverick, legendary commander that would eagerly seek that chance to prove that he could do it. Now, in cannon oBSG, we have no proof that Cain survived that engagement with two basestars. I'm damned sure he wasn't thinking about the state of his ship after the fight, and was perfectly willing to sacrifice himself and his crew to take out those two ships to protect the fleet. We know this because he sent his fighters to Galactica, meaning IF he survived, he was pretty screwed with no fighters.

So my call is this....a Battlestar is SLIGHTLY more powerful that a Basestar. Engaging two Basestars is an act of insanity, vanity, or desperation.

Finally, we don't KNOW what the full figher capacity of the Galactica was. Her own fighter squadrons got decimated during the ambush, Galactica LEFT her fighters on the field, and basically took on all surviving fighters after.

Overall, I like the Galactica design, but those damned landing bays are just TO tempting a target. Look how many times the cylons did suicide runs on them after all.
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
User avatar
Mark
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 17671
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:49 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Captain Seafort » Tue May 24, 2011 8:38 pm

Mark wrote:So my call is this....a Battlestar is SLIGHTLY more powerful that a Basestar. Engaging two Basestars is an act of insanity, vanity, or desperation.


Purely ship-to-ship, or including fighters? If it's the former, I agree, but if it's the latter I'd say the roles are at least reversed and probably even more heavily weighted towards the Cylons, given Tigh's attitude towards taking on the Basestar in HoG.

Overall, I like the Galactica design, but those damned landing bays are just TO tempting a target. Look how many times the cylons did suicide runs on them after all.


Tempting and extremely vulnerable. One raider detonating inside a pod was enough to kill the Atlantia.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15475
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Mark » Tue May 24, 2011 8:49 pm

Yes, I'm referring specifically Battlestar vs Basestar. If we add fighters.....its touchy. In Saga of a Star World, we hear Apollo and Zack quoting the kill ratio for Vipers vs Raiders to be 10 to 1....which we see backed up on screen. Cylons seem to be moronic pilots.

However, Vipers can't be everywhere, and a swarm of cylon fighters, even at a five to one advantage would give a huge opening to smash Galactica. Hell, all they really need are a few squadrans of tylium filled suicide ships to kamakazi Galactica and POOF....shows over.
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
User avatar
Mark
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 17671
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:49 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Deepcrush » Tue May 24, 2011 8:55 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:You said that "one Battlestar can face off pretty easily against a pair of Cylon Baseships." While I don't dispute that it's possible for one Battlestar to take on two and destroy them, the bit I disagree strongly with is your statement that it would be easy, and the implication that any Battlestar could do it. The Cain Manoeuvre required a very unusual set of circumstances to succeed, and I think it says far, far more about Cain's tactical skills than it does about the relative strengths of a Battlestar and a Basestar.


To me, I saw nothing special about Cain. He drove his ship through enemy fire to point blank range and fired. The fact that the Battlestar survived and the Baseships didn't tells me the Battlestar is vastly superior.

Captain Seafort wrote:Absolutely, but by the standards of her contemporaries she's pretty good - as I said, she's quite a bit smaller than a Basestar, is more oriented towards ship-to-ship combat, and still carries half the fighters.


Agreed, I like the ship. But those were the two areas I thought needed improvement. The worst problem the Battlestars had wasn't in facing Cylon Baseships, but their swarms of fighters. Improved AA and another fifty fighters would have handled the problem nicely.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Captain Seafort » Tue May 24, 2011 8:56 pm

On the subject of Battlestar fighter strength, I would say we have circumstantial evidence that 150 is indeed standard. Galactica was carrying Red and Blue "squadrons" prior to Cimtar, and Pegasus carried Bronze Spar and Silver Spar, both of which were later transferred to Galactica. This appears to indicate a standard flight group of two squadrons (one per pod maybe). "Squadrons" are 75 strong, per a Basestar carrying four [LL], with a total of 300 fighters {HoG]. Ergo, the evidence seems to suggest that a Battlestar's standard flight group is 150 Vipers.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15475
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Deepcrush » Tue May 24, 2011 8:59 pm

It also shows that Battlestars can also carry far more then standard. Another important factor to add in, why the hell didn't they have a max compliment?
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Mark » Tue May 24, 2011 9:09 pm

Perhaps that was Baltar's doing? After all, he was playing the "diplomatic" card to a hilt to ensure the fleet was set up, so its not unreasonable for him to have insisted on grounding most of the Battlestars fighters.

Actually, we've heard of Red, Green, Blue, and Yellow squadrons in oBSG....granted, it could have been Apollo and Starbuck screwing around, but Athenia only stated "We don't HAVE purple and orange squadrons. Nothing to deny the existance of green or yellow.

Now, 75 ships is a rather arbitrary number for a squadron, as a squadron can be 8, 12, 14 or more fighters. We just don't know unless some dialoge indicated what the strength of the squadrons were.
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
User avatar
Mark
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 17671
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:49 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Captain Seafort » Tue May 24, 2011 9:11 pm

Deepcrush wrote:To me, I saw nothing special about Cain. He drove his ship through enemy fire to point blank range and fired. The fact that the Battlestar survived and the Baseships didn't tells me the Battlestar is vastly superior.


As Mark said, we don't know whether Pegasus survived that run. Moreover, Cain had to a) know or guess that the raiders would be called off, b) relied on Apollo and Starbuck taking out the Basestars' point defences and c) had to close to point blank range, risking (and possibly suffering) Pegasus' destruction in the explosions. Without that, given Tigh's attitude towards taking on a single Basestar in HoG, I've no doubt that a single Battlestar and its flight group would be hopelessly outmatched by a couple of Basestars and their raiders.

The worst problem the Battlestars had wasn't in facing Cylon Baseships, but their swarms of fighters.


Agreed. One-on-one, with no fighter support for either side, I'd give the fight to the Battlestar. With even minimal fighter support for the Battlestar against no raiders, we've seen that a Battlestar can destroy two Basestars, but we don't know if it can be achieved without losing the Battlestar.

It also shows that Battlestars can also carry far more then standard. Another important factor to add in, why the hell didn't they have a max compliment?


I she probably was carrying max compliment - don't forget that all four squadrons had been fighting without reinforcement for a long time, and were probably seriously understrength.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15475
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Captain Seafort » Tue May 24, 2011 9:16 pm

Mark wrote:Actually, we've heard of Red, Green, Blue, and Yellow squadrons in oBSG....granted, it could have been Apollo and Starbuck screwing around


"Could have"? :lol: Even Apollo thought Starbuck was getting a bit carried away with that little stunt.

Now, 75 ships is a rather arbitrary number for a squadron, as a squadron can be 8, 12, 14 or more fighters. We just don't know unless some dialoge indicated what the strength of the squadrons were.


In Living Legend, Baltar stated that a Basestar carried four squadrons, and in Hand of God Tigh stated that they carried 300 fighters. You can't get much more explicit than that.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15475
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Next

Return to Battlestar Galactica

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron