If you have more turrets aiming at the front where you are facing on, you have more firepower towards where the captain is aiming for. That's the true design of this ship, with a focus on destroying capital ships, and full firepower toward where the ship is facing on. One turret behind will just expend resources. That's why star destroyers and republic venators, have the triangular shape with entire floors of turrets in Star Wars.... In World war II most of the AA guns was placed in the sides of the battleships because you can have more concentrated fire coming from one spot, which makes the squadrons that are coming to make a direct attack, became really supressed
The thing with the perseus and redeemer is a mixup of definitions. The redeemer is like the air force definition of a gunship, whereas the perseus is the naval definition of a gunboat. However they can't call it a "boat" because it's 100m long and in space so they call it a gunship. They're both gunships, but the context behind the terms are different based on the origins.
It's not really big enough to qualify as a cruiser, if the Javelin is a destroyer and the Idris is a frigate - but the scale of those names in Star Citizen does seem to be scaled up a bit.
@@billyhyde1415 The former Navy side of me thinks they jump the gun by calling them Destroyers and Frigates. To me they are more like Cruisers and battleships. WHile the Hammerhead, Natulis, Perseus and polaris are more on line with Destroyers as it's the smaller ships that actually do a lot of the hunting not the bigger. Even calling these Corvetters makes you think there should be something between than as it's a pretty big jump up to the next level in the Javelins and Idris.
@@likeorasgod I mostly agree. A lot of sci franchises, not just SC, often borrow heavily from historic naval terminology without really putting too much thought into what the actual role of their fictional ship actually is. This isn’t even getting into the fact that the roles of several modern ship classes have actually changed since they came into use. Destroyer is/was a shortened form of torpedo boat destroyer; a class of ship meant to counter torpedo boats. No one builds torpedo boats today and even by WWII, destroyers had mostly shifted to escort and air defense roles. Today, most warships which aren’t carriers operate as mobile air defense and land attack platforms.
@@likeorasgod - I agree. And Billy Hyde is also correct that ship class nomenclature in SC is a bit odd. If the Javelin is the biggest capital ship, then really, it's a battleship, or battlecruiser. We'll reserve the term "dreadnought" because we know the Vanduul have bigger ships. I suppose cig is allowing themselves room to add larger capital ships. However, that just seems unnecessary given the already huge relative size of the Javelin and its equivalent combat power compared to what the average player will be driving. What we currently have is the Javelin as a battleship. The Idris is a battlecruiser or heavy cruiser. The Polaris is more like a light/fast cruiser or destroyer (pick your terminology), capable of a variety of roles. The Perseus and Hammerhead are frigates focused on a specific role. Of course, if the Perseus and HH are corvettes, then everything else moves into the next bracket. When it comes to nomenclature, there's also the issue of certain classes of ship existing in some periods of naval history, but not others (as the last example above) and trying to apply these names to ships that are being dreamt up hundreds of years in the future. We should have debate about whether the Caterpillar is a galleon or fluyt...given that the Hull series is probably galleons. Or are they both simply freighters? Either way, I do wish CIG thought their naming convention through better (as well as if we need things bigger than the Javelin).
3:51 Re, "you don't need a rear facing turret..." For smaller "big" ships like a Freelancer or Retaliator, your logic is sound. However, for the Perseus, you need to think bigger picture. Your falling into the trap that you used to very often but, thankfully, rarely do anymore: you're thinking about the ship as it might be used RIGHT NOW in our little verse. So, let's ask, "What is the Perseus going to be doing?" If the answer is "fighting one ship that wants to chase it, you're correct, no rear turret needed. If, however, the Perseus is going to be pushing an objective or attacking a big ship (ostensibly what it's designed to do), then it is entirely likely that something else will try to flank it, coming up where it had no field of fire. If the ship only had forward armament, in order to deal with that new threat, the Perseus would have to switch to a defensive attitude and rotate to engage the attacker. Remember that the Perseus was supposed to be on offense. So, the mere presence of a potential attacker would force the Perseus off its assigned mission. The extra turret coverage gives it flexibility while not impacting its full firepower, assuming the target can be brought into broadside and the guns can converge. Another scenario is hit and run on a station or a ship that is either slower or engaging another primary target. You can drive in, firing the forward turret, taking damage to that shield facing. Then, you can fly by and continue firing with the rear turret while shifting incoming damage to a fresh shield. The rear turret isn't something that "makes no sense". It adds flexibility and increases skill required between pilot and gunners to attack one target with a non head on attack. If you think about it w bit, you'll see that "just put both sets of guns facing in a forward arc" sounds a bit boring and novice in comparison. Sure, the usefulness of the turret might be situational, but so is pretty much everything else. You've come a long way in how you evaluate and speculate. I hate to see these backslide vids where you dig up some of your old bad habits.
When you're dealing with ships this size battles become more akin to naval battles, but in 3D. Even in star wars logic that bottom turret would be a must.
I like your thinking. The turret placement as it is helps with coverage, which becomes more and more important as ships get larger and clumsier, and as they become targets for enemies coming in from multiple vectors. Turret placement like this also helps the helmsman of the ship to stay on course and in formation without sacrificing firepower. This ship can't just be thought about tactically, it needs to be thought about strategically as well. As in, not just what role it will have alone, but what role it will have alongside others.
@@billyhyde1415 - Yup, your bring up a great point about keeping in mind the ship's individual role as well as its place within a larger group. I really hope they get server tech sorted out sooner rather than later. Large fleet battles between orgs or even ai (outlaws, security, or Vanduul) and players will be amazing to watch, let alone participate in.
I was thinking about what you said about decoupling, and then about Perseus sluggishness. Maybe the sheer size of it make the decoupling move inpractical?
I agree that the Perseus will probably be more affordable to operate. It's a simpler ship. The tradeoff is that it seems less versatile. I would also say that the Hammerhead is less versatile than the Polaris. That doesn't mean the HH is bad, just not as versatile. The HH is, arguably, better at its specific job (anti fighter) than the Polaris would be (although the Polaris looks like it will be competent, albeit with the higher running costs). So, similarly, if you need something that can punch a hole in a capital ship, the Perseus might be better at that than the Polaris (dodging the turret fire will probably be harder than out ranging or confusing as a torpedo). As with the HH, the Polaris might not be as good in the specific role, but it will be competent with higher costs and bigger crew as the tradeoff for the versatility. Since I don't know exactly what I'll be doing with a ship in this size category, the Polaris remains more attractive because it can fulfill more roles, even if it can't fulfill them quite as well.
SC is Newtonion...but the Perseus is a big ship and won't rotate while in de-coupled quickly. The small turrets are simply for torpedo defense. The big turrets essentially have a shared 270 arc if the large target is on the flat plane of the ship from any angle of attack by the two turrets
He counters his own argument... its 6 degree combat... meaning you can be attacked from all sides... so the name of the game is coverage of fire... decoupling and swinging the ship around at that size is just not as viable as just having a turret spin around.. I dont understand why you wouldn't want turret coverage of your engines.
@@StoneCoolds Even if you can't hit the same target facing forwards, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to turn to the side and get both turrets on target. Hopefully they will address this in the Q&A and we can know for sure.
It's not hurt feelings, it's in the end no one outside combat pilots bothers turning up and you have an empty universe with no piracy because there are no merchants.
But there will be merchants, miners and misson runners. Thinking their wont be because of some pirates is stupid. Eve still manages to have thousands of hauling ships moving around and that game is just ganktown 24/7.
@@TheShorterboy well tell that to my killboard. I've got 3 jump freight kills this month, plenty of haulers trying to get through low sec. Plenty of pirate kills. Its literally impossible to only have pirates in a game that will have such in depth logistics.
@@zhain0 Ok you're not listening, for every 1 hauler you nut in low/null there are a thousand in high and the toon you killed has resources in high to sustain the odd low/null loss, if you killed that person every day they would leave forever. Predator prey ratio's are important too many predators and you have no prey and pretty soon no predators either.
It is already rather a light frigate than a corvette, having the Andromeda as an example for a SC corvette. Decoupled will work wonders with its forward- oriented firing ark. If it only aims its nose towards maneuvring Andromedas, it will obliterate such alike. Was is 12 People needed to function ? Thats a pretty adult ship, i think.
@@kawafahra By reading your comment I'm even wondering if you are even paying attention to the stats chris puts into stone on the ships. You need to read the Brochures instead of just looking and estimating. The Perseus is a large ship and not even big enough to be a corvette. The Andromeda is a large ship that's almost small enough to be a medium ship. The crew requirements for the andromeda is like 3-4 at the most. and the Perseus is like 6 at the most, but you can get away with probably just 3 as a skeleton crew for either ship.
@@michaelmichaelagnew8503 If you have more turrets aiming at the front where you are facing on, you have more firepower towards where the captain is aiming for. That's the true design of this ship, with a focus on destroying capital ships, and full firepower toward where the ship is facing on. One turret behind will just expend resources. That's why star destroyers and republic venators, have the triangular shape with entire floors of turrets in Star Wars.... In World war II most of the AA guns was placed in the sides of the battleships because you can have more concentrated fire coming from one spot, which makes the squadrons that are coming to make a direct attack, became really supressed
Turning your ship 180 to shoot at something behind you is not only going to take much longer than spinning the turret around, it's also quite dangerous if there are asteroids or other ships you can run into. It would also mean you can't hit two targets, one in front and one behind you, at the same time.
Yup that Keel turret looks like if can cover 360 degree's with no obstructions. The bow turret looks like it has room to swing all the way around also but won't have the ability to fire directly behind like the keel turret can. Plus there's the rear facing remote Gatling. I still think it could use one more remote Gatling on the bottom of the bow. Looks like there's a huge blind spot to close to the front that neither the top or bottom main guns can cover. Would have to have a pilot that was keenly aware of that spot so they could pitch the ship to cover it as it stands right now.
You make valid points regarding turret placement, but you're focusing on a single tactical situation that is solvable by your suggestion. You are kind of disregarding the tactical situations where the current placement would be superior to your suggestion, such as engaging multiple enemies from multiple attack angles. In this case the current placement provides a greater coverage than if both turrets were, for example, forward mounted.
He doesn't mention the possibility of encountering multiple ships... in a massively multiplayer game. He keeps saying the target, as in... singular enemy. No mention of escort ships either. Sounds like a gap in his thought process.
Also, in atmosphere you can't go decoupled to cover your rear without losing tremendous amounts of speed. And if the solution to protecting your rear in space is to go decoupled and fight them that way, then why is it so hard to accept that same solution for fighting single targets in front of you by broadsiding them. Anything that needs to be shot at by all s7 weapons on the Perseus is a big enough of a target to be broadsided at even close up ranges. Having both guns at the front of the ship is incredibly limiting by comparison. Not to mention the ship design would have to change completely to accommodate both guns at the front (since CIG models everything physically in engine, so the internal affects the external) and I really like the way the ship looks as is.
I think looking at the bottom of the ship, at the range you can engage, both turrets should be a able to hit a single target In front of you, as well as broadside.
That ships also atmosphere capable, so ground targets are not far fetched. I can see a Perseus being as an anti armor gunship, like something in between an A-10 and an AC-130
A lot of people are trying to use this ship for solo work. This is not what corvettes, destroyers and frigates are about. The ships like Idris, Polaris, Perseus, Hammerhead, Kraken are ALL fleet support ships. They were never designed to be solo play. They were designed to mutually support one another based on mission requirements. Flying into a squadron of light fighters and destroying all of them because you paid more money than the next guy is not how these ships work. If mission requires that you destroy a Kraken, you need 2 squadrons of light fighters, 2 hammerheads and with 2 polaris or drop the polaris and replace with 2 to 3 squadrons of retaliator or eclipse bombers. That is assuming intelligence is 100% sure that kraken is alone. So the question about Perseus's poor turret placement is moot because the Perseus (as I view it) is a escort ship and would never operate alone. It doesn't hunt down other capital ships. It hunts down destroyers, frigates and other corvettes.
You forget one thing, about the "decoupling" and so on. human ships have a very "earth like" flight behaiviour, due to having the strongest engines at the back. So later on, it may not be "viable" to always decouple with larger ships. If we talked about X'ian, a race with ships the focus a lot more on the 6dof, than it would fit better what you say.
Great vids as always. I like the breakdown between. Star wars flight models and Newtonian based flight. Only thing I would be worried about with the decouple and flip to face the enemy. Is the rate of turn. How quickly will the purseus flip a 180 to gun down a pursuer? Will a competent pilot be able to continue a maneuver to stay out of the kill zone?
yeah its not a little ship its gonna take prolly close to 10 seconds to 180 i think having the turret placement makes a lot of sense because decoupling something upwards of a connie is just slow and ineffective fighters can use it well because of there maneuverer speeds big ships are ofc have access to decoupled but big ships do fly somewhat more like in starwars just due to force needed to turn them and the speed it needs to be done
If you have more turrets aiming at the front where you are facing on, you have more firepower towards where the captain is aiming for. That's the true design of this ship, with a focus on destroying capital ships, and full firepower toward where the ship is facing on. One turret behind will just expend resources. That's why star destroyers and republic venators, have the triangular shape with entire floors of turrets in Star Wars.... In World war II most of the AA guns was placed in the sides of the battleships because you can have more concentrated fire coming from one spot, which makes the squadrons that are coming to make a direct attack, became really supressed
"that some people refer to as Griefing." As a cargo hauler myself. It's griefing BECAUSE you can't loot my ship, you can't profit. I look forward to the day when I have a protection detail balanced against the risk of a pirate attack. If I'm flying a FL Max, the most cargo value I can have is $X. The max profit I can gain $Y. The most I can afford to spend on escorts is $Z. Meanwhile because the max value is $X. A pirate fleet can't really afford to commit 40 pirates and 20 ships to the attack. The take won't pay for fuel and damage, much less 1000 UEC per pirate. So making these calculations will be fun.
Actually you can loot your ship in the current game, if destroyed it will drop boxes. And also you will be getting stopped and boarded most often by npc's not players. time to wake up to the realities of what is coming, While you make you millions perhaps consider spending a little of it on escorts, or perhaps even fly with friends or an org. Its an mmo if you play solo expect to die/get looted and often and be deserving of it. Its gameplay not griefing. Welcome to CRs pirate simulator.
I'd grief the hell out of you over and over if I found you in game, I'd alternate my 10 accounts + my org mates 100+ accounts to make it completely unplayable.
@@Ash_Rackham I know at one point shops were dropping boxes, and at that point, I stopped calling at Griefing. I have not seen dropped boxes In several months. I wondered if they took thst out for server problems
Am I the only one thing on the Perseus for a pirate op? Like, a Perseus intercepts a caterpillar or a Hull A-C, blows it up, or just orders the crew to dump the cargo. After the cargo's out and the witnesses are gone (one way or another) a hauler of your own comes and collects the cargo.
it seems that the perseus is designed to fly into an enemy fleet and brawl instead of the polaris staying back and throwing torps at them. thats just my thought, and yeah the CIG seems to be having a lot of issues lately with their turret placement on concept ships. *cough cough* the corsair *cough cough*
The Perseus is definitely designed for FUTURE implementations, like armor. Current game it’s meh. Otherwise it’s fairly well rounded. Size 3 turret for torps and light fighters (although they’d need to be quad for it to do any significant damage against ships), size 5 torps for heavy fighters and medium ships, and the ballistic cannons to punch through armor. Where as the HH, while a great anti fighter, in the future those size 4s won’t have enough alpha damage to do anything against ships in its weight class.
The Perseus is not meant to run away, decouple, etc. This is the star wars thinking. The Perseus can engage its main target while dealing with something coming from behind.
The PERSEUS has one huge advantage.. it has a need of alot less people than the polaris. About the hurt feelings, you are spot on with that. See for example this PVP event.
The only reason the Perseus does anything for me is the fact I can put 3 people in it and use it as a sniper+extra threat/distraction- when using a fleet with near fully manned ships having a suicide ship or two that offer false threats will help you control the flow of battle, control your enemy. It'll either get ignored by smarter enemies and do it's job, or get taken seriously and do it's job, taking precious seconds off the DPS race for your opponents, give you time on target while they focus on a superficial threat, possibly wasting precious torpedos
I think a big design factor in placing the turrets was wanting a ship that could fire in a naval broadside fashion, which the Percy does. As for the decoupled defense, you have to get to max cruise speed first, which may take a while, then you have to turn, which also takes time. I like the ability to react to an attack immediately without having to hit max speed before I can turn around to return fire. As for an offensive strike. I see a semi speedy approach as I launch my 20xS5 torps until I get into gun range, turn the ship slightly and fire both turrets broadside with shields maxed to that side as I fly past the target. It works both offensively and defensively. Sure, both turrets being forward might be slightly better for offense, but significantly worse for defense.
The setup of the turrets is very similar to that on the Caterpillar. Usually I can point forward and both turrets can hit at a far range, but if I need them both to hit something closer, all I need to do is point about 30-45 degrees to one side. I imagine that it'll be similar for the Perseus. Kind of half-broadsiding.
The point you made about the carrack is spot on for me. I melted my carrack for the Polaris because it just didn't have the fire power I was looking for
I agree that the lower turret isn't placed -magnificently-, but it's far from bizarre. The Perseus can still fire all four guns directly forward, or anything in about a 270-degree forward. As for the Caterpillar in pirate operations: The problems you discuss are troubling on the surface of planets, but vanish in space, and vanish for both piracy and normal freight purposes. That being said, having all those doors function as elevators or ramps would still be quite nice. As for tractor beams: They're not going to revitalize cargo and piracy all on their own. Cargo still doesn't jettison with a ship's destruction, and likely won't until icache comes on board.
I don't think you're considering the full picture minion, sure you can jusr decouple and turn to face your target, but will he let you do it? There is always going to be other ships capable of out-manovre you, so having the turret placed where it is ensure you can have a better time having at least one on target all the time. On the other hand, on a forward target i believe it will still be possible to have both turrets come to bare on the same ship, as long as it's not a small one of course.
I debated Polaris vs. Perseus during the sale. I went with Perseus because of the lower crew size. Sure, in the episode Crew said six crew members, "Because we thought it was silly to only have a crew of three in such a large ship," but those last two crew slots were just because to do other random things for which they gave no concrete example. It's going to be a 3 or 4 crew ship.
I count 6 that can have useful positions. There are the 2 main manually operated guns(1 on top of Bow, and 1 on the keel mid-ship just behind the cargo elevator), the 2 remote operated gatling turrets(can be automated), a Pilot and a Capt on the scanner station designating targets. That's 5. Then last but not least you'll want an Engineer that can be free to move about the ship fixing shit during battle. Sure, you could drop the 2 guys running the remote gatlings and leave them automated with just a 4 man crew, but where's the fun in that? Plus you can use the extra crew as backup combat repair/firefighter guys(people keep forgetting fires on board will be a thing). 1 engineer can't be every where at once.
Personally I think the Perseus being an attack ship more than a defensive tool, the right idea for the size 7 Turrets would have been to have them both on the top deck, one lower, one a bit higher, like naval battleships. This gives it's main guns more opportunity to work together and bring down primary targets, and makes sense from a captains point of view in that the bridge would be right above the turrets so the captain would be very aware of what targets the turrets can engage. A smaller point defense turret could replace the slot in the rear of the ship to provide cover from fighters torpedo's and such, granted this is a moot point since it's extremely unlikely CIG will change anything major about the ship now. But as is often the case in these concepts, there is maybe too much attention to style and art, and not enough focus on utility, and thought of how the actual ship will function in game.
Given that the bottom gun can face forward, it's kind a moot issue. As to the ships, I'm more inclined to CIG nerfing the minelayer versus the ship killer when it comes to fire power.
The Cat with the large tractor beam on the starboard and the smaller on the port shuttle is going to be the most versatile ship in the verse. Then with modules..., endless possibilities . Sorry but the Cat still gets me geeked up. Yours truly, Captain Obvious
it has a rear facing size 3 the bottom main turret faces to the front lots of room to fire the guns in a broad side manner but both main guns can be fire forward regardless to there placement
That Gatling gun on the lower rear[of the Perseus] will be nice to have when you have your main gunners trained on a bigger target and are being harassed by smaller fighters behind you. So no it's not irrelevant having it in space. Remember it's multi-crew. The pilot does not have access to any guns.
If you think about it, SOMEWHERE out there, there's going to be the right combination of low gravity and your personal tractor beam that you'll absolutely be able to crate ride. If these beams combine to carry more mass like multiple SRVs can, does that mean that a few players could get together and abscond with your 300i? If technology like this exists and can grapple you through zero-G environments at high speeds, why wouldn't every space marine have one attached to the barrel of their rifle? Gonna be interesting to see where it all goes.
It's not "unfortunate" that Star Wars is an inspiration for some of the ship design; the alternative is large, uninspired, gun-bristling amorphous "ships" that are no fun to encounter or field. True space combat would be pretty dull.
The expanse has very realistic space combat and isnt boring at all The problem with adding realism, weapon realism, and design realism, is that you end with a very long learning curve, snd that will take 99% of your players Is like dcs world vs war thunder, one is super realistic with a long learning curve but has 10000 players, the other is super fake and arcade with no learning curve but has 80 million players So hard choices lol
If you have more turrets aiming at the front where you are facing on, you have more firepower towards where the captain is aiming for. That's the true design of this ship, with a focus on destroying capital ships, and full firepower toward where the ship is facing on. One turret behind will just expend resources. That's why star destroyers and republic venators, have the triangular shape with entire floors of turrets in Star Wars.... In World war II most of the AA guns was placed in the sides of the battleships because you can have more concentrated fire coming from one spot, which makes the squadrons that are coming to make a direct attack, became really supressed
@@laurentguyot3362 not hundreds thousands of kms away, ships wont be big since distances would be huge and traveling speeds would be extremely fast, so the smaller the better, also small projectiles would be preferable What im saying is that you can keep it realistic while still being fun, the expanse is a nice example Pew pew star wars style is way to arcady and lame, would be like playing war thunder lol
@@raf.nogueira well firing where the pilot is aiming is dumb, specially in big ships, why you think battleships had turrets that swing 360 degrees? Pilot aiming a 100m+ ships its really arcady, the captain should concentrate in giving optimal positioning and target prioritizing, not aiming by moving a huge ship... No it is not a capital ship killer, its a merchant raider, good for pirates, to small for capitals, but that may change, now you can kill a 890j with a single buccaneer so... WWII ships had the AA batteries at the sides... because thats the most common place for planes to attack, (ships tend to be bigger targets from the side), give you 360 degrees umbrella for those coming high, and you dont interfere whit the main guns... Star wars "battleships" are a terrible example of anything military remotely related, they are basically a joke There is a funny video of what would happen if the empire invaded current century earth, and basically they would be massacred lol 😆
The question should not be Do You Need A Rear Facing Or Rear Accessible Gun? The question should be How Much Rear Facing Or rear Accessible Gun Do You Need? Got a target behind you that you would prefer stayed back while you went on your way? Let that single turret turn around to send some munitions across their path. If they don't take the hint and they are big enough to pose a viable threat is when you would then swap ends to allow both turrets to engage.
If you are running away or toward something but not yet at top speed. You need those main engines to accelerate. In that time you can be under attack from the rear. If you decouple and 180 you will lose the acceleration from the mains.
Especially in larger ships, pilots really like to know where they are going, which is hard if you flip your ship around. Also, larger ships take longer to rotate, even when decoupled.
I was always hoping one of those "modular pods" for the Carrack would be a torpedo bay. It'd still need more guns though. I think the Polaris wins though. Not just because of the big size 10's but because of the brig, med bay, armory, etc... it's the real flying base.
Well I would also apply in a debris or astroid field or something where you wouldn’t really want to just the couple and turn around and let yourself fly into something you kind of want to keep control of where the hell you’re going but yes and 90% of situations like you said it doesn’t really factor in
Being in a lawful PMC, I really enjoy when pirates are on servers. It always creates fun gameplay (albeit if chat gets cringe). I wish their were more of y’all out there being vocal so we could have a bit more fun and feed off each others gameplay choices
I like the look of the Perseus for sure and with decoupling, this ship can still put a lot of firepower on target but if they really wanted to make an agile sub-cap ship shredder they should have just given an Idris rail gun some engines, thrusters, and a bridge.
Given the mass of this thing I'm not sure you'd want to be slewing back and forth all the time. You'll either be slow doing it or you'll be maxing out mavs and eating into cooling pool.
how's that make any sense though like you'd be decoupling a ship with a backwards facing turret but that shit might take 22 seconds to turn around to do a 180 The idea is the pilot doesn't have to spend dozens of seconds turning the ship and still has firepower facing the rear
Personally I REALLY like the idea of being the space pirate, but the other guy on my shoulder is like "Hey don't ruin peoples day." So I really hope they have NPC operated cargo haulers and other civilian NPC's to raid and pillage. If so, I would gladly stick to only NPC raiding and be completely happy with it. Another thing I think Piracy should expand on, would be heists and other criminal activities on/off world
I agree if the turrets can't focus fire it greatly diminishes the value of the ship to the point of where ill likely melt it if they don't fix it by the time it's flyable. I would probably take a Nautilus instead. And I would totally take a Polaris over it but I'm not gonna spend 750 warbond on it and I don't feel like competing with bots to get it.
Minion, I understand what your saying about the turrets however, you didn't mention when your in multi ship battles. I mean yeah one ship just spin around but if you have a ship but in a scenario where your facing multi ships you need as many angles covered as possible with out having to reposition the ship. I do agree the term gunship makes me think of more anti fighter not anti sub cap, but what would you call it? Im not sure
I noted action time being an issue. As with any robbery time and planning are essential to succeed. But as in real events help to the innocent should be there. Do- gooders , Police , secret services, mercenaries should be allowed to intervein and assist. So depending on the location time it takes for forces to arrive ones the alarm is sounded should be important . Oh and a reward system would be nice.
I'd say it's a Corvette just like the others. It definitely has the same strength of armor as the Hammerhead and in a far more effective design than the Hammerhead as well. The Hammerhead may have thick armor however it's pretty flat. Angled/slanted armor will be more effective. CIG has stated this is their goal.
Of course you can go decoupled and turn around, but what if you are chasing someone and someone else is chasing you? In single target fights, sure having 2 guns at the front would be better, but anything that you are 1v1ing in this ship that 2 size 7 guns wouldn't rip to shreds, is probably very large at which point you could also just broadside to put all weapons into play, which was a part of the original concept anyways, but realistically in this ship you will rarely find yourself in 1v1 situations, because of the situations you will insert yourself into as a Perseus. Here is a great example of how chaotic ship fights can get and why having rear coverage is a good thing: ua-cam.com/video/S3wSt-wjN7I/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Terada
not necessarily if the ship is engaged with multiple threats, then the forward turrets would be focused on its main target whilst the rear turret offered defense for the pursuer trying to defend your original target Whilst yes what you're saying is plausible, it mostly depends on the situation, who youre attacking and whos attacking you So the perseus ABSOLUTELY requires that rear turret, it is not redundant at all. Its an extra turret to allow you to cope with more situations
And if you really do need to bring all weapons in play on a single target, just decouple and angle the ship slightly as to broadside them. And anything that needs to be shot at by all four s7 guns, it's probably big enough to be broadsided up close too. This ship will rarely face a single target imo.
I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you here on this. It sounds like what your saying is that there is no reason for a large ship like to have any guns anywhere else but, right in front of it. I'm not sure if the mechanic's of the game necessitate all forward facing firepower. I could easily see a situation where the positions of the guns on the Perseus would be an advantage over having them both forward facing.
I think the main point is the 3 men crew. Giving you 4 size 7 guns. No other ship has that firepower crew requirements. As for the nautilus... It will be Nerf because it is a trolling ship supreme. I use to play NWN in that game you as a Rogue can build and place traps. Very good idea fun mechanic BUT then the trolls come out for funs and giggles and put traps outside every noob area that they walk and watch as they get impelled and kill. Making every server having to Nerf that mechanic. Same thing will happen here, mines are a good idea for combat zone but player will plant them everywhere and that will be the end of that idea. Polaris offer more play loops so it is my favourite too is just sooooo expensive 🤑 maybe if one day I am able to get a discount CCU I will get myself one.
I think they didn't do the Cat elevator yet, cause ship elevator right now are kinda broken. They don't "lock" whatever is there before moving up and down, and the physics go crazy. Until they rework how they work, I don't think they will work on something that will have to be revisited later on. That seems to be their "policy" on how to deal with what to spend time on lately.
B but. . How Will I know if the tonk will fit in it if I don't ask? Or If I can Solo the ship with Automating the big turrets. The brochure doesn't have these specific questions! On a serious note people just don't bother to attempt to read. It shows with all the easily answered questions getting upvoted.
They listen to too much of the feedback from a vocal minority of citizens and you bet if they had placed both those turrets in such a way as to create a blind spot high and behind the Perseus there would have been people complaining about it. The Hammerhead and Perseus are heavy gunships the Redeemer is bikkedd as merely a gunship.
This ship will most likely always have multiple targets, based on its role. You don't bring a Perseus unless there's a small pirate/marauder fleet looking for a bruising. And so many people, including myself in the past, view ship battles from a top down perspective, but watch this to see just how chaotic fights can get and why rear facing turrets are a good idea. ua-cam.com/video/S3wSt-wjN7I/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Terada
The issue is that brochures need to call out way more standardized specs in a standardized regard. Armor wasn't given. Is weapon bespoke- what are the gun's stats. Battery... for the ares what is this. Why is it not in future concept brochures.
You should not be flying with the couplers (inertial dampers) turned on anyway. It wastes fuel to be constantly thrusting and not increasing your speed. For me the coupler only comes on during landing, as a safety feature.
Star citizen does not work on newtonian physics, we would have orbit such as in Kerbal space program if that was the case, but we don't. It's not different from starwars: boats and planes (without aerodynamics ) in space,
Use the caterpillars tractor beam to pick up people mining in a Roc and deposit them in the caterpillars cargo hold where your friends are ready to take the Roc pilot out.
was thinking the same thing but with the cutty black. down shields and emp a miners ship with warlock or vanguard , then smash and grab on the back doors and fly away with the roc to share out profits later
I don't know if its a controller issue, or changes to the flight model, but I USED to be able to point my ship at a landing pad, get going about 25 M/S, decouple, and execute a movie quality spinning Landing. Doesn't work like that any more.
depends on the ship, decoupled landigns are super easy in the cuttys and prospectors but not so much in eclipses .... my wings keep falling off when i try
@@MrLeetfun I heard somebody say that when you hit the gravity field at Olisar, it "changes something" and your momentum Isn't the same. But on the other hand. I think there is an issue with my controller. I'll take off, straight up, but somehow a forward vector gets applied. Other times, I'll be in space. I'll turn OFF cruise control. And turn ON coupling, be at a dead stop, and suddenly start going forward as if cruise control were on. But it's only sometimes.
@@LordTiberius52 yeah that sound like it might be controller, closest thing i have to that are the 'thruster imbalance' nonsense where the ship starts turning right randomly
@@MrLeetfun yeah, this evening I tried it quite a bit. I'd point at the pad at Olisar, be coming in maybe 70 mps. As the speed dropped to around 25 mps I'd decouple, which SHOULD let me drift at 25, and in that same vector. As I level out the ship For a cinimatic landing. But instead the speed dropped right Down to zero even faster when I decoupled. Do you know how to adjust the control settings for flightstick drift?
@@LordTiberius52 sorry Ted, im afraid i dont, the only time i have experienced that is when exiting the seat while on a glide path. the ship just stops dead like i flicked the coupled switch. Maybe try checking settings to make decoupled the default, does mean ahving to switch it on everytime you want to take off on planet though
I get what you say about decouple and 180, but what if you are fired upon from behind and in front? What if you are in a larger engagement and need to fire in front and behind at the same time? What you are saying is true, but very niche. You argue that vercitility is one of a ships best features, and also argue for less vercitility?
You gave a single scenario of being chased in a one on one fight in a purseus. In the majority situations the perseus will be involved in its not practical to 180 to engage and that turret would prove useful
Kinda works, kinda doesnt. Elite dangerous does this move. If the ship is more maneuverable than you and can go faster or slow down quicker than your ship, they can still move around it and out of your line of fire. Happens on elite a lot. Though you can keep moving forward, you still move/turn your ship slow as hell if you are a big ship. Peresus is gonna be slow lol.
Lose the rear turret and put a freaking rail gun or phaser or laser platform on the bottom front. Keep the top front size 7s but make the bottom gun smaller than the idris rail gun to keep balance. instead of rear big gun ,put player control 2 size 4s for fighter defense. Slow ship with high forward DPS is better than slow ship that can only use one turret effectively.
I'm not 100% agree with your assessment of the rear turret. In 1v1 situation : yes you are correct. But if you engage in a battle with multiple ennemies this turret stays very useful to pressure the ships trying to shoot you from the rear while you use your S7 turret on bigger ships.
Honestly I think it's wayyy too undergunned. It needs to have a couple more S7 turrets to really be useful, hopefully make it look more like a proper space-battleship. Having them above and below makes a lot of sense to me, there's no reason there wouldn't be any below really that I can justify. It's supposed to be able to take on sub-cap ships specifically, but that shouldn't mean it can't at least help take on the larger ones. As for the point defence ones, the coverage is pretty tragic. Needs one or two size 2 remote turrets perhaps just below where the torpedo tubes are? The point on decoupling I'm not sure I agree with too much, since the main thrusters are on the back, and you need to line up with quantum beacons in order to engage the drive. If you're facing the wrong way you can't get out and escape. I put an idea of what I'd have liked it to be on reddit and spectrum a few days ago, titled the RSI Leviathan if anyone's interested: robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/61894/thread/rsi-anvil-leviathan/3631220
Hey, they finally put the bridge in the right place (Not on the nose of the ship) let's not question it too much 😂
When you are thinking about combat, you want less Star Wars, and more the expanse.
For Beltalowda!! :)
If you have more turrets aiming at the front where you are facing on, you have more firepower towards where the captain is aiming for. That's the true design of this ship, with a focus on destroying capital ships, and full firepower toward where the ship is facing on. One turret behind will just expend resources. That's why star destroyers and republic venators, have the triangular shape with entire floors of turrets in Star Wars.... In World war II most of the AA guns was placed in the sides of the battleships because you can have more concentrated fire coming from one spot, which makes the squadrons that are coming to make a direct attack, became really supressed
The thing with the perseus and redeemer is a mixup of definitions. The redeemer is like the air force definition of a gunship, whereas the perseus is the naval definition of a gunboat. However they can't call it a "boat" because it's 100m long and in space so they call it a gunship. They're both gunships, but the context behind the terms are different based on the origins.
I'd probably go with the term BattleCruiser if they added an extra few of those big turrets
It's not really big enough to qualify as a cruiser, if the Javelin is a destroyer and the Idris is a frigate - but the scale of those names in Star Citizen does seem to be scaled up a bit.
@@billyhyde1415 The former Navy side of me thinks they jump the gun by calling them Destroyers and Frigates. To me they are more like Cruisers and battleships. WHile the Hammerhead, Natulis, Perseus and polaris are more on line with Destroyers as it's the smaller ships that actually do a lot of the hunting not the bigger. Even calling these Corvetters makes you think there should be something between than as it's a pretty big jump up to the next level in the Javelins and Idris.
@@likeorasgod I mostly agree. A lot of sci franchises, not just SC, often borrow heavily from historic naval terminology without really putting too much thought into what the actual role of their fictional ship actually is. This isn’t even getting into the fact that the roles of several modern ship classes have actually changed since they came into use.
Destroyer is/was a shortened form of torpedo boat destroyer; a class of ship meant to counter torpedo boats. No one builds torpedo boats today and even by WWII, destroyers had mostly shifted to escort and air defense roles. Today, most warships which aren’t carriers operate as mobile air defense and land attack platforms.
@@likeorasgod - I agree. And Billy Hyde is also correct that ship class nomenclature in SC is a bit odd.
If the Javelin is the biggest capital ship, then really, it's a battleship, or battlecruiser. We'll reserve the term "dreadnought" because we know the Vanduul have bigger ships.
I suppose cig is allowing themselves room to add larger capital ships. However, that just seems unnecessary given the already huge relative size of the Javelin and its equivalent combat power compared to what the average player will be driving.
What we currently have is the Javelin as a battleship.
The Idris is a battlecruiser or heavy cruiser.
The Polaris is more like a light/fast cruiser or destroyer (pick your terminology), capable of a variety of roles.
The Perseus and Hammerhead are frigates focused on a specific role.
Of course, if the Perseus and HH are corvettes, then everything else moves into the next bracket.
When it comes to nomenclature, there's also the issue of certain classes of ship existing in some periods of naval history, but not others (as the last example above) and trying to apply these names to ships that are being dreamt up hundreds of years in the future.
We should have debate about whether the Caterpillar is a galleon or fluyt...given that the Hull series is probably galleons. Or are they both simply freighters?
Either way, I do wish CIG thought their naming convention through better (as well as if we need things bigger than the Javelin).
3:51 Re, "you don't need a rear facing turret..."
For smaller "big" ships like a Freelancer or Retaliator, your logic is sound.
However, for the Perseus, you need to think bigger picture. Your falling into the trap that you used to very often but, thankfully, rarely do anymore: you're thinking about the ship as it might be used RIGHT NOW in our little verse.
So, let's ask, "What is the Perseus going to be doing?"
If the answer is "fighting one ship that wants to chase it, you're correct, no rear turret needed.
If, however, the Perseus is going to be pushing an objective or attacking a big ship (ostensibly what it's designed to do), then it is entirely likely that something else will try to flank it, coming up where it had no field of fire.
If the ship only had forward armament, in order to deal with that new threat, the Perseus would have to switch to a defensive attitude and rotate to engage the attacker.
Remember that the Perseus was supposed to be on offense. So, the mere presence of a potential attacker would force the Perseus off its assigned mission.
The extra turret coverage gives it flexibility while not impacting its full firepower, assuming the target can be brought into broadside and the guns can converge.
Another scenario is hit and run on a station or a ship that is either slower or engaging another primary target. You can drive in, firing the forward turret, taking damage to that shield facing. Then, you can fly by and continue firing with the rear turret while shifting incoming damage to a fresh shield.
The rear turret isn't something that "makes no sense". It adds flexibility and increases skill required between pilot and gunners to attack one target with a non head on attack.
If you think about it w bit, you'll see that "just put both sets of guns facing in a forward arc" sounds a bit boring and novice in comparison.
Sure, the usefulness of the turret might be situational, but so is pretty much everything else.
You've come a long way in how you evaluate and speculate. I hate to see these backslide vids where you dig up some of your old bad habits.
When you're dealing with ships this size battles become more akin to naval battles, but in 3D. Even in star wars logic that bottom turret would be a must.
I like your thinking. The turret placement as it is helps with coverage, which becomes more and more important as ships get larger and clumsier, and as they become targets for enemies coming in from multiple vectors. Turret placement like this also helps the helmsman of the ship to stay on course and in formation without sacrificing firepower. This ship can't just be thought about tactically, it needs to be thought about strategically as well. As in, not just what role it will have alone, but what role it will have alongside others.
@@billyhyde1415 - Yup, your bring up a great point about keeping in mind the ship's individual role as well as its place within a larger group.
I really hope they get server tech sorted out sooner rather than later. Large fleet battles between orgs or even ai (outlaws, security, or Vanduul) and players will be amazing to watch, let alone participate in.
This guy absolutely gets it...
I was thinking about what you said about decoupling, and then about Perseus sluggishness. Maybe the sheer size of it make the decoupling move inpractical?
polaris is gonna have more crew and higher running costs than a Perseus
Those size 9 torpedoes are going to break the bank! You are going to think twice before waste them...
@@laurentguyot3362 Polaris is equipped with size 10 torps.
@@laurentguyot3362 Eclipse and Retaliator have s9 torpedoes, Polaris has size 10 torpedoes, and Javelin has s12 torpedoes.
I agree that the Perseus will probably be more affordable to operate. It's a simpler ship. The tradeoff is that it seems less versatile.
I would also say that the Hammerhead is less versatile than the Polaris. That doesn't mean the HH is bad, just not as versatile. The HH is, arguably, better at its specific job (anti fighter) than the Polaris would be (although the Polaris looks like it will be competent, albeit with the higher running costs).
So, similarly, if you need something that can punch a hole in a capital ship, the Perseus might be better at that than the Polaris (dodging the turret fire will probably be harder than out ranging or confusing as a torpedo).
As with the HH, the Polaris might not be as good in the specific role, but it will be competent with higher costs and bigger crew as the tradeoff for the versatility.
Since I don't know exactly what I'll be doing with a ship in this size category, the Polaris remains more attractive because it can fulfill more roles, even if it can't fulfill them quite as well.
SC is Newtonion...but the Perseus is a big ship and won't rotate while in de-coupled quickly. The small turrets are simply for torpedo defense. The big turrets essentially have a shared 270 arc if the large target is on the flat plane of the ship from any angle of attack by the two turrets
Crewe never used the word “persueing” he only mentioned a blind spot. Your whole argument is based on a false premise lol....
Yeah, Minion seems to thinks there'll never be enemy ships in more than one direction or something in this video.
He counters his own argument... its 6 degree combat... meaning you can be attacked from all sides... so the name of the game is coverage of fire... decoupling and swinging the ship around at that size is just not as viable as just having a turret spin around.. I dont understand why you wouldn't want turret coverage of your engines.
I would absolutely buy a combat version of the Carrack with size 7s.
Yeah i want one too
It'd pretty much a makeshift capital ship for smaller orgs. I think that's genius
@@Titopaivag3 Yeah especially if the combat version had a medbay as well.
@@jamesp5923 if it didn't it wouldn't have an appeal
It would also be cool if in this version they'd rework the cargo ramp and bay so snub fighters could use it as a hangar with proper hangar functions
The biggest advantage is the amount of firepower you can add to a small fleet with 3 crew. Will be a lot better running with other ships.
Dunno, i dont think 2 size 7 will be that of a game changer, i say 2 because it seems you can only aim 1 turret at the same target
@@StoneCoolds Even if you can't hit the same target facing forwards, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to turn to the side and get both turrets on target. Hopefully they will address this in the Q&A and we can know for sure.
@@JookySeaCpt My guess is the bottom turret will pop up enough when active to fire both forwards.
It's not hurt feelings, it's in the end no one outside combat pilots bothers turning up and you have an empty universe with no piracy because there are no merchants.
But there will be merchants, miners and misson runners. Thinking their wont be because of some pirates is stupid. Eve still manages to have thousands of hauling ships moving around and that game is just ganktown 24/7.
@@zhain0 yes and they are all in high sec, go low and it's a desert with null controlled by corps, been there done that
@@TheShorterboy well tell that to my killboard. I've got 3 jump freight kills this month, plenty of haulers trying to get through low sec. Plenty of pirate kills. Its literally impossible to only have pirates in a game that will have such in depth logistics.
@@zhain0 Ok you're not listening, for every 1 hauler you nut in low/null there are a thousand in high and the toon you killed has resources in high to sustain the odd low/null loss, if you killed that person every day they would leave forever.
Predator prey ratio's are important too many predators and you have no prey and pretty soon no predators either.
Cool video. New concepts , but wheres my BMM? Been waiting years.
CIG on Perseus questions even before Q&A: *replies*
CIG on BMM questions: The ... what?
It's not a ship for everyone yet everyone wanted her for her turret and bridge
I didnt want it
It's a ship designed to be the bulk of any small fleet
It is already rather a light frigate than a corvette, having the Andromeda as an example for a SC corvette.
Decoupled will work wonders with its forward- oriented firing ark. If it only aims its nose towards maneuvring Andromedas, it will obliterate such alike.
Was is 12 People needed to function ? Thats a pretty adult ship, i think.
@@kawafahra By reading your comment I'm even wondering if you are even paying attention to the stats chris puts into stone on the ships. You need to read the Brochures instead of just looking and estimating. The Perseus is a large ship and not even big enough to be a corvette. The Andromeda is a large ship that's almost small enough to be a medium ship. The crew requirements for the andromeda is like 3-4 at the most. and the Perseus is like 6 at the most, but you can get away with probably just 3 as a skeleton crew for either ship.
@@michaelmichaelagnew8503 If you have more turrets aiming at the front where you are facing on, you have more firepower towards where the captain is aiming for. That's the true design of this ship, with a focus on destroying capital ships, and full firepower toward where the ship is facing on. One turret behind will just expend resources. That's why star destroyers and republic venators, have the triangular shape with entire floors of turrets in Star Wars.... In World war II most of the AA guns was placed in the sides of the battleships because you can have more concentrated fire coming from one spot, which makes the squadrons that are coming to make a direct attack, became really supressed
Turning your ship 180 to shoot at something behind you is not only going to take much longer than spinning the turret around, it's also quite dangerous if there are asteroids or other ships you can run into. It would also mean you can't hit two targets, one in front and one behind you, at the same time.
Yup that Keel turret looks like if can cover 360 degree's with no obstructions. The bow turret looks like it has room to swing all the way around also but won't have the ability to fire directly behind like the keel turret can. Plus there's the rear facing remote Gatling. I still think it could use one more remote Gatling on the bottom of the bow. Looks like there's a huge blind spot to close to the front that neither the top or bottom main guns can cover. Would have to have a pilot that was keenly aware of that spot so they could pitch the ship to cover it as it stands right now.
You make valid points regarding turret placement, but you're focusing on a single tactical situation that is solvable by your suggestion. You are kind of disregarding the tactical situations where the current placement would be superior to your suggestion, such as engaging multiple enemies from multiple attack angles. In this case the current placement provides a greater coverage than if both turrets were, for example, forward mounted.
He doesn't mention the possibility of encountering multiple ships... in a massively multiplayer game. He keeps saying the target, as in... singular enemy. No mention of escort ships either. Sounds like a gap in his thought process.
Also, in atmosphere you can't go decoupled to cover your rear without losing tremendous amounts of speed. And if the solution to protecting your rear in space is to go decoupled and fight them that way, then why is it so hard to accept that same solution for fighting single targets in front of you by broadsiding them. Anything that needs to be shot at by all s7 weapons on the Perseus is a big enough of a target to be broadsided at even close up ranges. Having both guns at the front of the ship is incredibly limiting by comparison. Not to mention the ship design would have to change completely to accommodate both guns at the front (since CIG models everything physically in engine, so the internal affects the external) and I really like the way the ship looks as is.
I think looking at the bottom of the ship, at the range you can engage, both turrets should be a able to hit a single target In front of you, as well as broadside.
That ships also atmosphere capable, so ground targets are not far fetched. I can see a Perseus being as an anti armor gunship, like something in between an A-10 and an AC-130
@@Titopaivag3 "Orbital strike incoming"
@@Toaster_The_Tall I wonder if we can use javelins in orbit as artillery
Perseus sexiest ship in the game. All the reason I need to buy it
A lot of people are trying to use this ship for solo work. This is not what corvettes, destroyers and frigates are about. The ships like Idris, Polaris, Perseus, Hammerhead, Kraken are ALL fleet support ships. They were never designed to be solo play. They were designed to mutually support one another based on mission requirements. Flying into a squadron of light fighters and destroying all of them because you paid more money than the next guy is not how these ships work.
If mission requires that you destroy a Kraken, you need 2 squadrons of light fighters, 2 hammerheads and with 2 polaris or drop the polaris and replace with 2 to 3 squadrons of retaliator or eclipse bombers.
That is assuming intelligence is 100% sure that kraken is alone.
So the question about Perseus's poor turret placement is moot because the Perseus (as I view it) is a escort ship and would never operate alone. It doesn't hunt down other capital ships. It hunts down destroyers, frigates and other corvettes.
You forget one thing, about the "decoupling" and so on.
human ships have a very "earth like" flight behaiviour, due to having the strongest engines at the back.
So later on, it may not be "viable" to always decouple with larger ships.
If we talked about X'ian, a race with ships the focus a lot more on the 6dof, than it would fit better what you say.
Great vids as always. I like the breakdown between. Star wars flight models and Newtonian based flight. Only thing I would be worried about with the decouple and flip to face the enemy. Is the rate of turn. How quickly will the purseus flip a 180 to gun down a pursuer? Will a competent pilot be able to continue a maneuver to stay out of the kill zone?
yeah its not a little ship its gonna take prolly close to 10 seconds to 180 i think having the turret placement makes a lot of sense because decoupling something upwards of a connie is just slow and ineffective fighters can use it well because of there maneuverer speeds big ships are ofc have access to decoupled but big ships do fly somewhat more like in starwars just due to force needed to turn them and the speed it needs to be done
If you have more turrets aiming at the front where you are facing on, you have more firepower towards where the captain is aiming for. That's the true design of this ship, with a focus on destroying capital ships, and full firepower toward where the ship is facing on. One turret behind will just expend resources. That's why star destroyers and republic venators, have the triangular shape with entire floors of turrets in Star Wars.... In World war II most of the AA guns was placed in the sides of the battleships because you can have more concentrated fire coming from one spot, which makes the squadrons that are coming to make a direct attack, became really supressed
Good looking ship. We will see how it does in actual gameplay soon enough
I wonder how many years it will take you to realize CR intentionally wants flawed ships?
Some people forget this is a game, and there needs to be balance, and not one ship to rule them all.
"that some people refer to as Griefing."
As a cargo hauler myself. It's griefing BECAUSE you can't loot my ship, you can't profit.
I look forward to the day when I have a protection detail balanced against the risk of a pirate attack. If I'm flying a FL Max, the most cargo value I can have is $X. The max profit I can gain $Y. The most I can afford to spend on escorts is $Z.
Meanwhile because the max value is $X. A pirate fleet can't really afford to commit 40 pirates and 20 ships to the attack. The take won't pay for fuel and damage, much less 1000 UEC per pirate.
So making these calculations will be fun.
Actually you can loot your ship in the current game, if destroyed it will drop boxes. And also you will be getting stopped and boarded most often by npc's not players. time to wake up to the realities of what is coming, While you make you millions perhaps consider spending a little of it on escorts, or perhaps even fly with friends or an org. Its an mmo if you play solo expect to die/get looted and often and be deserving of it. Its gameplay not griefing. Welcome to CRs pirate simulator.
I'd grief the hell out of you over and over if I found you in game, I'd alternate my 10 accounts + my org mates 100+ accounts to make it completely unplayable.
Maybe you should play a single player game.
@@lo-taren420 great. That is a bannable offense and I'd get your ass banned. And you would lose all the money you've put into the game.
@@Ash_Rackham I know at one point shops were dropping boxes, and at that point, I stopped calling at Griefing. I have not seen dropped boxes In several months. I wondered if they took thst out for server problems
Am I the only one thing on the Perseus for a pirate op? Like, a Perseus intercepts a caterpillar or a Hull A-C, blows it up, or just orders the crew to dump the cargo. After the cargo's out and the witnesses are gone (one way or another) a hauler of your own comes and collects the cargo.
it seems that the perseus is designed to fly into an enemy fleet and brawl instead of the polaris staying back and throwing torps at them. thats just my thought, and yeah the CIG seems to be having a lot of issues lately with their turret placement on concept ships. *cough cough* the corsair *cough cough*
I'm going to bet it will have very good armor rating over it's shields for this reason.
The Perseus is definitely designed for FUTURE implementations, like armor. Current game it’s meh. Otherwise it’s fairly well rounded. Size 3 turret for torps and light fighters (although they’d need to be quad for it to do any significant damage against ships), size 5 torps for heavy fighters and medium ships, and the ballistic cannons to punch through armor. Where as the HH, while a great anti fighter, in the future those size 4s won’t have enough alpha damage to do anything against ships in its weight class.
The best would be to decouple, skew 90 degrees port or starboard, then roll ship to align and open with all turrets in a broadside.
The Perseus is not meant to run away, decouple, etc. This is the star wars thinking.
The Perseus can engage its main target while dealing with something coming from behind.
The PERSEUS has one huge advantage.. it has a need of alot less people than the polaris. About the hurt feelings, you are spot on with that. See for example this PVP event.
The only reason the Perseus does anything for me is the fact I can put 3 people in it and use it as a sniper+extra threat/distraction- when using a fleet with near fully manned ships having a suicide ship or two that offer false threats will help you control the flow of battle, control your enemy. It'll either get ignored by smarter enemies and do it's job, or get taken seriously and do it's job, taking precious seconds off the DPS race for your opponents, give you time on target while they focus on a superficial threat, possibly wasting precious torpedos
I think a big design factor in placing the turrets was wanting a ship that could fire in a naval broadside fashion, which the Percy does. As for the decoupled defense, you have to get to max cruise speed first, which may take a while, then you have to turn, which also takes time. I like the ability to react to an attack immediately without having to hit max speed before I can turn around to return fire. As for an offensive strike. I see a semi speedy approach as I launch my 20xS5 torps until I get into gun range, turn the ship slightly and fire both turrets broadside with shields maxed to that side as I fly past the target. It works both offensively and defensively. Sure, both turrets being forward might be slightly better for offense, but significantly worse for defense.
The setup of the turrets is very similar to that on the Caterpillar. Usually I can point forward and both turrets can hit at a far range, but if I need them both to hit something closer, all I need to do is point about 30-45 degrees to one side. I imagine that it'll be similar for the Perseus. Kind of half-broadsiding.
In Naval parlance that's called an Oblique shot. Usually taken as you move around towards the targets flank at an oblique angle. :)
The point you made about the carrack is spot on for me. I melted my carrack for the Polaris because it just didn't have the fire power I was looking for
If you got the carrack for combat that's on you.
@@brandonporter6223 hence the melt
I agree that the lower turret isn't placed -magnificently-, but it's far from bizarre. The Perseus can still fire all four guns directly forward, or anything in about a 270-degree forward.
As for the Caterpillar in pirate operations: The problems you discuss are troubling on the surface of planets, but vanish in space, and vanish for both piracy and normal freight purposes. That being said, having all those doors function as elevators or ramps would still be quite nice.
As for tractor beams: They're not going to revitalize cargo and piracy all on their own. Cargo still doesn't jettison with a ship's destruction, and likely won't until icache comes on board.
I don't think you're considering the full picture minion, sure you can jusr decouple and turn to face your target, but will he let you do it? There is always going to be other ships capable of out-manovre you, so having the turret placed where it is ensure you can have a better time having at least one on target all the time.
On the other hand, on a forward target i believe it will still be possible to have both turrets come to bare on the same ship, as long as it's not a small one of course.
I debated Polaris vs. Perseus during the sale. I went with Perseus because of the lower crew size. Sure, in the episode Crew said six crew members, "Because we thought it was silly to only have a crew of three in such a large ship," but those last two crew slots were just because to do other random things for which they gave no concrete example. It's going to be a 3 or 4 crew ship.
I count 6 that can have useful positions. There are the 2 main manually operated guns(1 on top of Bow, and 1 on the keel mid-ship just behind the cargo elevator), the 2 remote operated gatling turrets(can be automated), a Pilot and a Capt on the scanner station designating targets. That's 5. Then last but not least you'll want an Engineer that can be free to move about the ship fixing shit during battle. Sure, you could drop the 2 guys running the remote gatlings and leave them automated with just a 4 man crew, but where's the fun in that? Plus you can use the extra crew as backup combat repair/firefighter guys(people keep forgetting fires on board will be a thing). 1 engineer can't be every where at once.
Personally I think the Perseus being an attack ship more than a defensive tool, the right idea for the size 7 Turrets would have been to have them both on the top deck, one lower, one a bit higher, like naval battleships. This gives it's main guns more opportunity to work together and bring down primary targets, and makes sense from a captains point of view in that the bridge would be right above the turrets so the captain would be very aware of what targets the turrets can engage. A smaller point defense turret could replace the slot in the rear of the ship to provide cover from fighters torpedo's and such, granted this is a moot point since it's extremely unlikely CIG will change anything major about the ship now. But as is often the case in these concepts, there is maybe too much attention to style and art, and not enough focus on utility, and thought of how the actual ship will function in game.
Given that the bottom gun can face forward, it's kind a moot issue. As to the ships, I'm more inclined to CIG nerfing the minelayer versus the ship killer when it comes to fire power.
The Cat with the large tractor beam on the starboard and the smaller on the port shuttle is going to be the most versatile ship in the verse. Then with modules..., endless possibilities . Sorry but the Cat still gets me geeked up.
Yours truly, Captain Obvious
it has a rear facing size 3 the bottom main turret faces to the front lots of room to fire the guns in a broad side manner but both main guns can be fire forward regardless to there placement
That Gatling gun on the lower rear[of the Perseus] will be nice to have when you have your main gunners trained on a bigger target and are being harassed by smaller fighters behind you. So no it's not irrelevant having it in space. Remember it's multi-crew. The pilot does not have access to any guns.
If you think about it, SOMEWHERE out there, there's going to be the right combination of low gravity and your personal tractor beam that you'll absolutely be able to crate ride.
If these beams combine to carry more mass like multiple SRVs can, does that mean that a few players could get together and abscond with your 300i?
If technology like this exists and can grapple you through zero-G environments at high speeds, why wouldn't every space marine have one attached to the barrel of their rifle?
Gonna be interesting to see where it all goes.
It's not "unfortunate" that Star Wars is an inspiration for some of the ship design; the alternative is large, uninspired, gun-bristling amorphous "ships" that are no fun to encounter or field. True space combat would be pretty dull.
The expanse has very realistic space combat and isnt boring at all
The problem with adding realism, weapon realism, and design realism, is that you end with a very long learning curve, snd that will take 99% of your players
Is like dcs world vs war thunder, one is super realistic with a long learning curve but has 10000 players, the other is super fake and arcade with no learning curve but has 80 million players
So hard choices lol
@@StoneCoolds Space combat would ne largely automated and you wont be seing any adversary ship since missiles would be shoot hundreds ok km away
If you have more turrets aiming at the front where you are facing on, you have more firepower towards where the captain is aiming for. That's the true design of this ship, with a focus on destroying capital ships, and full firepower toward where the ship is facing on. One turret behind will just expend resources. That's why star destroyers and republic venators, have the triangular shape with entire floors of turrets in Star Wars.... In World war II most of the AA guns was placed in the sides of the battleships because you can have more concentrated fire coming from one spot, which makes the squadrons that are coming to make a direct attack, became really supressed
@@laurentguyot3362 not hundreds thousands of kms away, ships wont be big since distances would be huge and traveling speeds would be extremely fast, so the smaller the better, also small projectiles would be preferable
What im saying is that you can keep it realistic while still being fun, the expanse is a nice example
Pew pew star wars style is way to arcady and lame, would be like playing war thunder lol
@@raf.nogueira well firing where the pilot is aiming is dumb, specially in big ships, why you think battleships had turrets that swing 360 degrees?
Pilot aiming a 100m+ ships its really arcady, the captain should concentrate in giving optimal positioning and target prioritizing, not aiming by moving a huge ship...
No it is not a capital ship killer, its a merchant raider, good for pirates, to small for capitals, but that may change, now you can kill a 890j with a single buccaneer so...
WWII ships had the AA batteries at the sides... because thats the most common place for planes to attack, (ships tend to be bigger targets from the side), give you 360 degrees umbrella for those coming high, and you dont interfere whit the main guns...
Star wars "battleships" are a terrible example of anything military remotely related, they are basically a joke
There is a funny video of what would happen if the empire invaded current century earth, and basically they would be massacred lol 😆
The question should not be Do You Need A Rear Facing Or Rear Accessible Gun? The question should be How Much Rear Facing Or rear Accessible Gun Do You Need? Got a target behind you that you would prefer stayed back while you went on your way? Let that single turret turn around to send some munitions across their path. If they don't take the hint and they are big enough to pose a viable threat is when you would then swap ends to allow both turrets to engage.
If you are running away or toward something but not yet at top speed. You need those main engines to accelerate. In that time you can be under attack from the rear. If you decouple and 180 you will lose the acceleration from the mains.
Especially in larger ships, pilots really like to know where they are going, which is hard if you flip your ship around. Also, larger ships take longer to rotate, even when decoupled.
I was always hoping one of those "modular pods" for the Carrack would be a torpedo bay. It'd still need more guns though. I think the Polaris wins though. Not just because of the big size 10's but because of the brig, med bay, armory, etc... it's the real flying base.
Not always facing one ship.
The turret placement is great.
Well I would also apply in a debris or astroid field or something where you wouldn’t really want to just the couple and turn around and let yourself fly into something you kind of want to keep control of where the hell you’re going but yes and 90% of situations like you said it doesn’t really factor in
Being in a lawful PMC, I really enjoy when pirates are on servers. It always creates fun gameplay (albeit if chat gets cringe). I wish their were more of y’all out there being vocal so we could have a bit more fun and feed off each others gameplay choices
I like the look of the Perseus for sure and with decoupling, this ship can still put a lot of firepower on target but if they really wanted to make an agile sub-cap ship shredder they should have just given an Idris rail gun some engines, thrusters, and a bridge.
Given the mass of this thing I'm not sure you'd want to be slewing back and forth all the time. You'll either be slow doing it or you'll be maxing out mavs and eating into cooling pool.
how's that make any sense though like you'd be decoupling a ship with a backwards facing turret but that shit might take 22 seconds to turn around to do a 180
The idea is the pilot doesn't have to spend dozens of seconds turning the ship and still has firepower facing the rear
I'd like to see the ships move like BSG reimagined or the Expanse.
Personally I REALLY like the idea of being the space pirate, but the other guy on my shoulder is like "Hey don't ruin peoples day." So I really hope they have NPC operated cargo haulers and other civilian NPC's to raid and pillage. If so, I would gladly stick to only NPC raiding and be completely happy with it. Another thing I think Piracy should expand on, would be heists and other criminal activities on/off world
I agree if the turrets can't focus fire it greatly diminishes the value of the ship to the point of where ill likely melt it if they don't fix it by the time it's flyable. I would probably take a Nautilus instead. And I would totally take a Polaris over it but I'm not gonna spend 750 warbond on it and I don't feel like competing with bots to get it.
Minion, I understand what your saying about the turrets however, you didn't mention when your in multi ship battles. I mean yeah one ship just spin around but if you have a ship but in a scenario where your facing multi ships you need as many angles covered as possible with out having to reposition the ship. I do agree the term gunship makes me think of more anti fighter not anti sub cap, but what would you call it? Im not sure
I noted action time being an issue. As with any robbery time and planning are essential to succeed. But as in real events help to the innocent should be there. Do- gooders , Police , secret services, mercenaries should be allowed to intervein and assist.
So depending on the location time it takes for forces to arrive ones the alarm is sounded should be important . Oh and a reward system would be nice.
It’s a Patrol Boat or at most Light Corvette.
The hammerhead, nautilus, and polaris are true corvettes.
I'd say it's a Corvette just like the others. It definitely has the same strength of armor as the Hammerhead and in a far more effective design than the Hammerhead as well. The Hammerhead may have thick armor however it's pretty flat. Angled/slanted armor will be more effective. CIG has stated this is their goal.
Of course you can go decoupled and turn around, but what if you are chasing someone and someone else is chasing you? In single target fights, sure having 2 guns at the front would be better, but anything that you are 1v1ing in this ship that 2 size 7 guns wouldn't rip to shreds, is probably very large at which point you could also just broadside to put all weapons into play, which was a part of the original concept anyways, but realistically in this ship you will rarely find yourself in 1v1 situations, because of the situations you will insert yourself into as a Perseus.
Here is a great example of how chaotic ship fights can get and why having rear coverage is a good thing: ua-cam.com/video/S3wSt-wjN7I/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Terada
Cant wait to grief with tractor beams
not necessarily
if the ship is engaged with multiple threats, then the forward turrets would be focused on its main target
whilst the rear turret offered defense for the pursuer trying to defend your original target
Whilst yes what you're saying is plausible, it mostly depends on the situation, who youre attacking and whos attacking you
So the perseus ABSOLUTELY requires that rear turret, it is not redundant at all. Its an extra turret to allow you to cope with more situations
And if you really do need to bring all weapons in play on a single target, just decouple and angle the ship slightly as to broadside them. And anything that needs to be shot at by all four s7 guns, it's probably big enough to be broadsided up close too. This ship will rarely face a single target imo.
Agree with everething You say
I would love a fighting carrack
I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you here on this. It sounds like what your saying is that there is no reason for a large ship like to have any guns anywhere else but, right in front of it. I'm not sure if the mechanic's of the game necessitate all forward facing firepower. I could easily see a situation where the positions of the guns on the Perseus would be an advantage over having them both forward facing.
I think the main point is the 3 men crew. Giving you 4 size 7 guns.
No other ship has that firepower crew requirements.
As for the nautilus... It will be Nerf because it is a trolling ship supreme. I use to play NWN in that game you as a Rogue can build and place traps. Very good idea fun mechanic BUT then the trolls come out for funs and giggles and put traps outside every noob area that they walk and watch as they get impelled and kill. Making every server having to Nerf that mechanic.
Same thing will happen here, mines are a good idea for combat zone but player will plant them everywhere and that will be the end of that idea.
Polaris offer more play loops so it is my favourite too is just sooooo expensive 🤑 maybe if one day I am able to get a discount CCU I will get myself one.
I think they didn't do the Cat elevator yet, cause ship elevator right now are kinda broken. They don't "lock" whatever is there before moving up and down, and the physics go crazy. Until they rework how they work, I don't think they will work on something that will have to be revisited later on. That seems to be their "policy" on how to deal with what to spend time on lately.
this ship wont be decuppling in atmo. and this ships size is what will be around planets and doing short escorts.
B but. . How Will I know if the tonk will fit in it if I don't ask? Or If I can Solo the ship with Automating the big turrets. The brochure doesn't have these specific questions!
On a serious note people just don't bother to attempt to read. It shows with all the easily answered questions getting upvoted.
RSI Perseus only has a six man crew it is just not going to work in war. For a pirate Christmas has come early.
They listen to too much of the feedback from a vocal minority of citizens and you bet if they had placed both those turrets in such a way as to create a blind spot high and behind the Perseus there would have been people complaining about it.
The Hammerhead and Perseus are heavy gunships the Redeemer is bikkedd as merely a gunship.
Yeah... the turret is primarily fighter and point defense. This will not be a super fast turn, the turret makes perfect sense.
If you have multiple targets then that placement still makes sense.
This ship will most likely always have multiple targets, based on its role. You don't bring a Perseus unless there's a small pirate/marauder fleet looking for a bruising. And so many people, including myself in the past, view ship battles from a top down perspective, but watch this to see just how chaotic fights can get and why rear facing turrets are a good idea.
ua-cam.com/video/S3wSt-wjN7I/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Terada
@@brandonporter6223 Yeah, my point exactly ^^
Big Brain debate the developers will sadly not listen to.
Do you guys think that guns are reliable but torps can be counter measured so not so much?
The issue is that brochures need to call out way more standardized specs in a standardized regard. Armor wasn't given. Is weapon bespoke- what are the gun's stats. Battery... for the ares what is this. Why is it not in future concept brochures.
You should not be flying with the couplers (inertial dampers) turned on anyway. It wastes fuel to be constantly thrusting and not increasing your speed. For me the coupler only comes on during landing, as a safety feature.
Perseus is the battleship in GUNDAM
Lol grand theft noodles we taking all the big bennis
Star citizen does not work on newtonian physics, we would have orbit such as in Kerbal space program if that was the case, but we don't. It's not different from starwars: boats and planes (without aerodynamics ) in space,
I'm really curious what the range of the turrets is
likely at least 9km
the redeemer is a gun boat. lol this is a gun ship if you are using real ships as reference
Use the caterpillars tractor beam to pick up people mining in a Roc and deposit them in the caterpillars cargo hold where your friends are ready to take the Roc pilot out.
was thinking the same thing but with the cutty black. down shields and emp a miners ship with warlock or vanguard , then smash and grab on the back doors and fly away with the roc to share out profits later
I don't know if its a controller issue, or changes to the flight model, but I USED to be able to point my ship at a landing pad, get going about 25 M/S, decouple, and execute a movie quality spinning Landing.
Doesn't work like that any more.
depends on the ship, decoupled landigns are super easy in the cuttys and prospectors but not so much in eclipses .... my wings keep falling off when i try
@@MrLeetfun I heard somebody say that when you hit the gravity field at Olisar, it "changes something" and your momentum Isn't the same.
But on the other hand. I think there is an issue with my controller. I'll take off, straight up, but somehow a forward vector gets applied. Other times, I'll be in space. I'll turn OFF cruise control. And turn ON coupling, be at a dead stop, and suddenly start going forward as if cruise control were on.
But it's only sometimes.
@@LordTiberius52 yeah that sound like it might be controller, closest thing i have to that are the 'thruster imbalance' nonsense where the ship starts turning right randomly
@@MrLeetfun yeah, this evening I tried it quite a bit. I'd point at the pad at Olisar, be coming in maybe 70 mps. As the speed dropped to around 25 mps I'd decouple, which SHOULD let me drift at 25, and in that same vector. As I level out the ship For a cinimatic landing. But instead the speed dropped right Down to zero even faster when I decoupled.
Do you know how to adjust the control settings for flightstick drift?
@@LordTiberius52 sorry Ted, im afraid i dont, the only time i have experienced that is when exiting the seat while on a glide path. the ship just stops dead like i flicked the coupled switch. Maybe try checking settings to make decoupled the default, does mean ahving to switch it on everytime you want to take off on planet though
I get what you say about decouple and 180, but what if you are fired upon from behind and in front? What if you are in a larger engagement and need to fire in front and behind at the same time? What you are saying is true, but very niche. You argue that vercitility is one of a ships best features, and also argue for less vercitility?
You gave a single scenario of being chased in a one on one fight in a purseus. In the majority situations the perseus will be involved in its not practical to 180 to engage and that turret would prove useful
To me the Perseus is the 'off-the-rack' Warship you can hand out in spades to pad a fleet.
It's simple, it's direct, it requires a minimal crew.
Kinda works, kinda doesnt. Elite dangerous does this move. If the ship is more maneuverable than you and can go faster or slow down quicker than your ship, they can still move around it and out of your line of fire. Happens on elite a lot. Though you can keep moving forward, you still move/turn your ship slow as hell if you are a big ship. Peresus is gonna be slow lol.
If it came out right now I’m think trading would just stop mining as well
Is "Join the man hunt" I believe msr skin working for now again?
I get Google telling me its one of latest news by cig, not sure why.
not just read ,ppl don't even watch the pictures anymore
Just ues side facing the target, like a pirate ship
CIG need to fix the very frequent disconnection issue first . It is nightmare
Lose the rear turret and put a freaking rail gun or phaser or laser platform on the bottom front. Keep the top front size 7s but make the bottom gun smaller than the idris rail gun to keep balance. instead of rear big gun ,put player control 2 size 4s for fighter defense. Slow ship with high forward DPS is better than slow ship that can only use one turret effectively.
Have a crew of people in the caterpillar with tractor beams and cargo loading will be fast.
I'm not 100% agree with your assessment of the rear turret. In 1v1 situation : yes you are correct.
But if you engage in a battle with multiple ennemies this turret stays very useful to pressure the ships trying to shoot you from the rear while you use your S7 turret on bigger ships.
Honestly I think it's wayyy too undergunned. It needs to have a couple more S7 turrets to really be useful, hopefully make it look more like a proper space-battleship. Having them above and below makes a lot of sense to me, there's no reason there wouldn't be any below really that I can justify. It's supposed to be able to take on sub-cap ships specifically, but that shouldn't mean it can't at least help take on the larger ones.
As for the point defence ones, the coverage is pretty tragic. Needs one or two size 2 remote turrets perhaps just below where the torpedo tubes are?
The point on decoupling I'm not sure I agree with too much, since the main thrusters are on the back, and you need to line up with quantum beacons in order to engage the drive. If you're facing the wrong way you can't get out and escape.
I put an idea of what I'd have liked it to be on reddit and spectrum a few days ago, titled the RSI Leviathan if anyone's interested:
robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/61894/thread/rsi-anvil-leviathan/3631220
The feelings got way more hurt today, while you do 10 cargo rusn, just to lose all your money for a single 30k