SHIP UPDATES : CIG EXPLAINS PERSEUS Turrets

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.

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 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 would absolutely buy a combat version of the Carrack with size 7s.

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.

Crewe never used the word “persueing” he only mentioned a blind spot. Your whole argument is based on a false premise lol....

polaris is gonna have more crew and higher running costs than a Perseus

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

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.

CIG on Perseus questions even before Q&A: replies CIG on BMM questions: The ... what?

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.

Cool video. New concepts , but wheres my BMM? Been waiting years.

It's not a ship for everyone yet everyone wanted her for her turret and bridge

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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?