Richard Bong
Space Marshal
But not compared to a Carrack, which the OP has.M2 also comes with more armor against balistic amo and more defensive turrets than C2.
But not compared to a Carrack, which the OP has.M2 also comes with more armor against balistic amo and more defensive turrets than C2.
This!Heres the problem with the M2 if you have a Carrack, theres nothing you can do with an M2 that you cant do with a Carrack.
With what John said about potential future modules, and maybe being able to fit one that can carry vehicles up to Ballista size, then there is absolute no point in owning an M2 if you already own a Carrack.
The C2 and A2 are different prospects, as the C2 has nearly 200 SCU more than a Carrack and the A2 is the top tier ground assualt/drop ship.
I like the scenario... but the last sentance have a flaw in it.For a more specific scenario, let's take Rock Raiders, TEST's premiere mining operation. They land on a planet with dozens of Moles, Prospectors, Rocs, and they build a storage warehouse with a Pioneer to fill up with thousands of SCU of ore. How do you get massive quantities from the surface up to that Hull E waiting in orbit? A small operation of C2s could make huge dents in that. I think it'd be the perfect ship for those kinds of situations.
Although personally, I think I decided on a BMM to carry large amounts of cargo from a surface to orbit. Not sure if it'll fly as well as a C2 since it's much bigger and heavier, but I love the style points!
i like this ideaFor a more specific scenario, let's take Rock Raiders, TEST's premiere mining operation. They land on a planet with dozens of Moles, Prospectors, Rocs, and they build a storage warehouse with a Pioneer to fill up with thousands of SCU of ore. How do you get massive quantities from the surface up to that Hull E waiting in orbit? A small operation of C2s could make huge dents in that. I think it'd be the perfect ship for those kinds of situations.
Although personally, I think I decided on a BMM to carry large amounts of cargo from a surface to orbit. Not sure if it'll fly as well as a C2 since it's much bigger and heavier, but I love the style points!
The vehicle pipeline director says it fits, so ill go with him in this instance.Well not sure about the armor, but the M2 actuall add 4 more turret: two in the front with 2xS3 and two under the "wings" with 1xS4... basically trasforming the standard cargo liftter into a sort of "hot zone cleaner" similar to the Walkyrie... just way more bigger....
I don't think the Carrak will ever have the space to carry along a ballista: I don't have the specs and the exact mesure, but the (supposed) swappable modules feels either too short and too narrow to fit one. It may not seams but the Ballista is not only tall but also preatty a large and long vehicle.
Also in general don't limit the comparison of two ships to only one caracteristics of if: carrying capacity doesn't make two ship equivalent, there are a lots of aspect into every ship to be considered like, for example, the shape of the cargo grid (freelancer owner should know ....), the fuel efficiency, the general handling of the ship, the crew requirement, the internal amenity space, the eventual limited availability (right now we are able to purchase every ship via pladge, more or less, in the future that is not granted) and so on...
What do you want to do with the M2?
i was considering for a small crew decent cargo hauler.
I think you need to know better what you mean by "small crew".Heres the problem. . .theres nothing you can do with an M2 that you cant do with a Carrack.
With the addition of point defense blades a Carrack that is just hauling cargo can get by with a crew of 2.I think you need to know better what you mean by "small crew".
Large (S3) series Q-Drives can haul large cargo across vast distances cheaper than smaller drives. How many players can you count on as crew, and how much cargo do you want to move, across how secure a space? Are you willing to stay in orbit and allow tenders to move cargo to the surface, or do you want the flexibility to fly point to point?
CIG is going to optimize the Hull series as the most efficient haulers. Look in detail at what that means. "Small crew" means a Hull C. Ask yourself whether that solution meets your real interests and needs. Hulls cannot defend themselves without escorts, but in many instances they won't need to. Hull Captains will therefore need to be expert in knowing when to hire escorts and when to trust to providence.
The Carrack is designed to land in areas where there has never been civilization. So rough field landing in no big deal.Let's not forget the Hercules series is specifically built as a sort of landing zone drop ship for planets. The Carrack is built more for space travel. Those VTOL thrusters will allow you to come in much hotter than a Carrack will. Resupplying a warzone is something the Hercules can do that the Carrack would be apprehensive to perform.
Carrack is built as an exploration ship and as such will have a ton more fuel to work with. It's more of a long distance hauler, where the Hercules is meant for shorter trips. I thought about getting a C2 in addition to my A2 simply to use it for transporting goods from a planet surface to a station or ship in orbit or vice versa. You get a Hull D up to a station and something has to bring those goods planetside.
According to the spec sheet, they also have 2 medium quantum fuel tanks. (Which should be only 2/3rds capacity of a large fuel tank.)I have a C2, as my plan is to use it as the Large cargo transport option in my fleet, so more about cargo then transporting tanks (but that's a nice bonus) so the M2 for me, is way overpriced to lose a bunch of SCU to gain one gun, some armor and be slower to boot. But that's my use case yours maybe different!
Especially now that the data miners have shown that the C2,M2, A2 all have the same component options (All 2xS3 Coolers, 2xS3 power plants, 2xS3 Shields)
I'll grant you the BMM does have trading stalls to be a mobile merchant. But it does also have six times the carry capacity of a C2 or Carrack. So if a BMM is capable of landing and taking off a planet somewhat easily, it'll definitely be a contender for shipping to orbit.The BMM main focus is to be an errand trading post
The BMM will either be completely revised or have another 500+ dollar increase to account for what it can do,I'll grant you the BMM does have trading stalls to be a mobile merchant. But it does also have six times the carry capacity of a C2 or Carrack. So if a BMM is capable of landing and taking off a planet somewhat easily, it'll definitely be a contender for shipping to orbit.
But I'm not sure if any design specs have been released as to how it'll handle gravity. It is designed as a blockade runner, but it's hard to say if that's through a space bound blockade or if it's to take off from a planet and jump away.
There was a pretty recent video of them talking about the BMM and that it had increased in size again to accommodate the original SCU size. And some concept arts made this thing look like a massive Capitol ship anyways. Like the Carrack would be dwarfed.The BMM will either be completely revised or have another 500+ dollar increase to account for what it can do,
Great points. I agree that its looking like the Hercules will be far more maneuverable in atmosphere then any of the other cargo haulers. While the Caterpillar can fly in atmosphere it runs the risk of overheating its maneuvering thrusts. Especially if they continue with CIG's plan on adding cargo weight to the ship handling.Let's not forget the Hercules series is specifically built as a sort of landing zone drop ship for planets. The Carrack is built more for space travel. Those VTOL thrusters will allow you to come in much hotter than a Carrack will. Resupplying a warzone is something the Hercules can do that the Carrack would be apprehensive to perform.
Carrack is built as an exploration ship and as such will have a ton more fuel to work with. It's more of a long distance hauler, where the Hercules is meant for shorter trips. I thought about getting a C2 in addition to my A2 simply to use it for transporting goods from a planet surface to a station or ship in orbit or vice versa. You get a Hull D up to a station and something has to bring those goods planetside.
The only downside to the Hull C and above series is they cannot land with cargo so you will not be taking that cargo down onto any moon or planet surface. Which will be more the task of ships like the Freelancer and Hercules.CIG is going to optimize the Hull series as the most efficient haulers. Look in detail at what that means. "Small crew" means a Hull C. Ask yourself whether that solution meets your real interests and needs. Hulls cannot defend themselves without escorts, but in many instances they won't need to. Hull Captains will therefore need to be expert in knowing when to hire escorts and when to trust to providence.
In defense of the Hull D/E, its been stated that you can box up certain ships into hauling boxes and carry them on those ships. So if you sacrifice some cargo space for a planetary transfer ship then you're perfectly fine going as a solo ship.The only downside to the Hull C and above series is they cannot land with cargo so you will not be taking that cargo down onto any moon or planet surface. Which will be more the task of ships like the Freelancer and Hercules.
Starfarer does come to mind and it is suppose to be able to swap out the fuel pods for cargo pods, but I have to wonder how efficient it would be at that or would it be better to hire local talent to do the final leg if needed. I just know that each flight update makes the Starfarer more sluggish in atmosphere.In defense of the Hull D/E, its been stated that you can box up certain ships into hauling boxes and carry them on those ships. So if you sacrifice some cargo space for a planetary transfer ship then you're perfectly fine going as a solo ship.
Most of them will fly with escorts or a caravan though, so one of those can shuttle cargo down to even uninhabited planets. Starfarer comes to mind.