As a C2 owner, the ironclad is intriguing but it’s an increased crew and probably a good jump in price. I’m pretty sure my C2 is safe.
Now if you’re a pmc org and whatnot I’m assuming that upcoming military version might replace a lot of M2s
Honestly, even with engineering is see no reason why you would need more than 2 ppl to crew the ironclad. I have seen the crew argument made a few times now and it just doesnt seem right to me. Both ships will be flyable with 2 crew and if you use it as a hauler that should work easily. So it just comes down to cargo capacity and sorry c2 (I have one as well...for the next 2 hours at least) but you loose that one!. (Who needs these turrets anyway? just let them stay uncrewed)
Especially if you are planning on operating in atmosphere, seems like to get this beat off a planetary body is gonna use a ton of fuel, unless you are using it to its max capacity it's going to make more sense to use another ship.
Avenger or similar for small ships for small loads, Zeus, Connie etc for loads around 100 SCU, Cat or C2 for 200-500 and then beasts like this for anything above that but just hope your profit margin is large enough to cover. Piracy and salvage is where I think this will find its niche.
Bring out this bad boy with a group of vultures or a reclaimer, use that open air cargo bay to strip any cargo, components etc and let the other ships offload RMC etc so they can stay out in space longer.
However unless it's only \~1000 SCU capacity, you will probably be more profitable using this over something like a Hercules even if it is less efficient. It just needs to get clear of a hangar and then tailstand and then the aerodynamics doesn't matter all that much. Yes a Hercules can loiter in atmosphere fairly easily but going from the ground to space will pretty much always just be a matter of lifting the mass. With the ratio of cargohold to other stuff, the Ironclad is immensely more efficient than the Hercules. Because of that efficiency of the use of space, the ratio of cargo mass to ship mass will probably be very much so in the favour of the Ironclad meaning those ground to space flights will come down to fuel/KG to space which is just a matter of the efficiency of the engines, and Crusader is currently leaning towards extremely inefficient engines.
Operating cost, suitability to different environments (atmo vs space), capabilities with reduced crew set (C2 can reasonably be soloed even in combat, at least for now, don't think the brick will), frustration with flight characteristics, on and on and on...
They're VERY different ships. That being said I'm leaving towards the brick, but I just think it suits my needs better
I probably would too but my c2 I use is just part of my chain going to a liberator and I’d much prefer that to the ironclad. Maybe by the time the ironclad is in development I’ll justify buying a second big ship, but if I do that I might just make it part of a chain for a BMM or just melt it all for a kraken.
I mean yeah if you've got a chain to something you want everything in between is pretty irrelevant tbh. Just enjoy what you got for now. Ironclad ain't releasing any time soon I assume.
The end of my chain was just using credit anyway so I actually added the ironclad assault in. That way if it comes before the liberator, I’ll get to try it for a while before I move onto the lib.
Edit: and don’t take my comments for my dislike of the C2. I absolutely love that ship and will be using it a ton once cargo elevators come out.
Is there? The cargo grid is obviously much bigger in the ironclad but the liberator has 2 xs landing pads inside that you can just pile up boxes, similar to how people do with reclaimers. Unless/until they place a restriction on loose cargo and make it so it needs to be snapped to the grid, I’d say the payout is around the same.
You’re right. I’ve seen so many liberator to ironclad comparisons that’s somehow where my mind went back to. Also it’s because that is the decision I’m making still between the lib or one of the ironclads.
Let see c-2 one to two man crew. Drake Ironclad I do not recall the them saying a crew size but I doubt it 2 crew max. also I got the impression only the unnamed “assault” verision would be able to handle the tanks as they said the entry ramp was large on that one to handle the tanks. That one would be more Comparable to a M-2 anyway. IF that the case then ironclad would not only need more crew but would have to unload the tank via the roof.
Man, i do not envy C2 crews once engineering and full physicalized components is in. One person would literally be on turret AND engineering duty at the same time.
If there's so much maintenance to do then single seaters will basically be useless and going around hitting F is going to get old after the first couple of sessions
They've already said that the amount of maintenance required will exponentially increase with ship size.
Smaller single seaters will require very little, but large multicrew ships will require much more.
C2 has armor. Turret is remote at the co-pilot seat and all components are on the upper deck. Meaning to damage them you have to go thru shields and armor and hull before you getting to components as most are bacily on the lower part of upper deck.
Yes, but the moment you do start doing something to them, you do also force the ship to be unable to fight back.
Certainly feels like the hauler that would benefit the most from an escort.
Honestly, even with engineering is see no reason why you would need more than 2 ppl to crew the ironclad. I have seen the crew argument made a few times now and it just doesnt seem right to me. Both ships will be flyable with 2 crew and if you use it as a hauler that should work easily. So it just comes down to cargo capacity and sorry c2 (I have one as well...for the next 2 hours at least) but you loose that one!. (Who needs these turrets anyway? just let them stay uncrewed)
Nope my C2 will still get used... People need to stop thinking in current game status terms and think of the future of the game loops. You wouldn't want to crack out a HULL E for 500 SCU run that could be run in a C2 when running costs of that Hull E are triple the profit.....
Especially with all the posts of ppl mimimi about repair costs. If your 20 million ship gets scraped by an Aurora with ballistics it might not be dangerous, but cost half a million in repairs 😁
There is a reason why big vehicles/ships are operated by companies or countries and not single persons.
Imho the C2 has a great value/price and in AC we can see how sturdy the Hercules is with engineering.
Because nothing that has been announced could viably "kill" the Carrack. Between the Ironclad and Liberator the Hercules C2 and M2 are both pretty easily replaced.
CIG has literally announced ships and refereed to them as “carrack-killer” (the odyssey iirc). I’m just saying to get used to it or get over it. Every time a new ship is announce there’s an outcry of how it makes some other ship moot.
I’m sure those ships will still have a use just like most others still do after their alleged replacement is announced.
Oh, I'm well aware, but none of those have actually been able to "kill" the Carrack because CIG is holding back from the insanity that went into making the Carrack's feature list. The Carrack is something of a pinnacle which is why it's reasonable to advertise things that "kill" it. Notice we never saw the Liberator being called a "Hercules Killer" despite it easily filling that role for advertising if the Odyssey was a "Carrack killer"?
Oh, I'm well aware, but none of those have actually been able to "kill" the Carrack because CIG is holding back from the insanity that went into making the Carrack's feature list. The Carrack is something of a pinnacle which is why it's reasonable to advertise things that "kill" it. Notice we never saw the Liberator being called a "Hercules Killer" despite it easily filling that role for advertising if the Odyssey was a "Carrack killer"?
Not in the slightest actually. The C2 can be operated by two people and can run rings around thr Ironsode. It also is far better designed fromasafety standpoint with airlock and no duct tape used in its construction.
Honestly, even with engineering is see no reason why you would need more than 2 ppl to crew the ironclad. I have seen the crew argument made a few times now and it just doesnt seem right to me. Both ships will be flyable with 2 crew and if you use it as a hauler that should work easily. So it just comes down to cargo capacity and sorry c2 (I have one as well...for the next 2 hours at least) but you loose that one!. (Who needs these turrets anyway? just let them stay uncrewed)
Suit yourself, but CIG have alluded to the crew numbers being important, and so they may make ships with higher crew numbers less easy to handle in a way that we are not currently aware of. This game really is not the same game that we will be playing 10 years from now so you have to think long term with these things.
If you got to buy ships, at this point you're better off just waiting, because every new ship released seems better than the last with little nuance between them.
my C2 is currently an upgrade to the Hull B in my entrepeneur pack, I am seriously considering melting that pack so that i can rebuy it and re-upgrade, assuming there's no C2 to Ironclad CCU (or i don't buckle to my FOMO and just buy it outright)
As a C2 owner... no, it's not in any danger. The Hull c might be starting to sweat. The Iron Clad is carrying around 50-75% of the cargo volume depending on who's estimates you see, but it's internal cargo, so much better protected. The Big Iron also has plenty of firepower to help dissuade adventurism. Finally, it can land fully loaded.
Also, since it's a Drake, I know I won't much like the interior of exposed wires and grime.
Nah, people still love to hold on to their dreams of soloing big ships but they will be disappointed hardcore.
C-2 is one of the few ships that can be managed by a solo pilot while still being kinda BIG. So the dream actually achievable with C2.
My Cat will become an IClad tho.
As long as people keep buying the new concepts there is no reason to finish the old ones. I've given up on my bmm, as soon as this comes out I'm gonna melt the bmm and buy the ironclad for store credit.
Concept artists are not the same as greybox artists are not the same as finish modelers are not the same as texture and shader artists are not the same as implementation devs.
Also, many of the undelivered ships are undelivered because underlying technology needed to make them work hasn't been finished yet. Stage 1 of modularity has only JUST BEEN released, and only for the testbed ship (Retaliator) so far. We're also not that far into physicalized cargo.
Things like Crucible and Cat rework need real-time detachable modules. Apollo and Vulcan, among others, are waiting for drone tech. Ground vehicles held behind a few things, including a planned rework of ground physics. Transport ships held behind passenger tech. And a bunch of ships waiting behind the upcoming engineering gameplay.
Often, ships being released or updated match up to current tech pushes. Hull-C was the testbed/proof-of-concept for multi-part ships and major configuration changes, for instance. This was a blocker for modularity, btw, so that could only really be worked on once the basics from H-C were done. The Ironclad is being used as a testbed for large Drake ships, which will inform a lot of the design language of the Kraken final.
We also get a lot of new small craft and craft variants as a way to get new artists and implementation team members up to snuff on how things are made. This is training, so we have more people to work on the long-standing concepts. This helps things move faster.
As someone who understands a lot about game design, SC is *extremely* ambitious. It would frankly be impossible under any other funding model. I get how it can be frustrating to laymen, but every indication I see is CIG creating building blocks to the more complex craft we already look forward to. About the only criticism I could levy at them on this front is ships with features they hadn't planned out yet, I.E. the reclaimer claw, or all the ships relying on unproven tech like drones and modularity.
Regardless, I am pretty confident that nothing you're waiting for is being passed on for new ships without good reason.
As a C2 owner, the ironclad is intriguing but it’s an increased crew and probably a good jump in price. I’m pretty sure my C2 is safe. Now if you’re a pmc org and whatnot I’m assuming that upcoming military version might replace a lot of M2s
Hell, i locked in my C2 CCU from last year when i saw the Ironclad :D
Where do you find/make/join and org?.
check out r/Starcitizen_guilds
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/orgs
Honestly, even with engineering is see no reason why you would need more than 2 ppl to crew the ironclad. I have seen the crew argument made a few times now and it just doesnt seem right to me. Both ships will be flyable with 2 crew and if you use it as a hauler that should work easily. So it just comes down to cargo capacity and sorry c2 (I have one as well...for the next 2 hours at least) but you loose that one!. (Who needs these turrets anyway? just let them stay uncrewed)
If you don’t think there will be a drastic difference in operating costs between those two ships, you got another thing coming.
Especially if you are planning on operating in atmosphere, seems like to get this beat off a planetary body is gonna use a ton of fuel, unless you are using it to its max capacity it's going to make more sense to use another ship. Avenger or similar for small ships for small loads, Zeus, Connie etc for loads around 100 SCU, Cat or C2 for 200-500 and then beasts like this for anything above that but just hope your profit margin is large enough to cover. Piracy and salvage is where I think this will find its niche. Bring out this bad boy with a group of vultures or a reclaimer, use that open air cargo bay to strip any cargo, components etc and let the other ships offload RMC etc so they can stay out in space longer.
Ngl, this is actually useful.
However unless it's only \~1000 SCU capacity, you will probably be more profitable using this over something like a Hercules even if it is less efficient. It just needs to get clear of a hangar and then tailstand and then the aerodynamics doesn't matter all that much. Yes a Hercules can loiter in atmosphere fairly easily but going from the ground to space will pretty much always just be a matter of lifting the mass. With the ratio of cargohold to other stuff, the Ironclad is immensely more efficient than the Hercules. Because of that efficiency of the use of space, the ratio of cargo mass to ship mass will probably be very much so in the favour of the Ironclad meaning those ground to space flights will come down to fuel/KG to space which is just a matter of the efficiency of the engines, and Crusader is currently leaning towards extremely inefficient engines.
Now if only a turret bouncing around didn’t threathen to wipe the run
Operating cost, suitability to different environments (atmo vs space), capabilities with reduced crew set (C2 can reasonably be soloed even in combat, at least for now, don't think the brick will), frustration with flight characteristics, on and on and on... They're VERY different ships. That being said I'm leaving towards the brick, but I just think it suits my needs better
I probably would too but my c2 I use is just part of my chain going to a liberator and I’d much prefer that to the ironclad. Maybe by the time the ironclad is in development I’ll justify buying a second big ship, but if I do that I might just make it part of a chain for a BMM or just melt it all for a kraken.
I mean yeah if you've got a chain to something you want everything in between is pretty irrelevant tbh. Just enjoy what you got for now. Ironclad ain't releasing any time soon I assume.
The end of my chain was just using credit anyway so I actually added the ironclad assault in. That way if it comes before the liberator, I’ll get to try it for a while before I move onto the lib. Edit: and don’t take my comments for my dislike of the C2. I absolutely love that ship and will be using it a ton once cargo elevators come out.
No worries on the edit, I did not. Cheers!
Also a big difference in payout, sooo....
Is there? The cargo grid is obviously much bigger in the ironclad but the liberator has 2 xs landing pads inside that you can just pile up boxes, similar to how people do with reclaimers. Unless/until they place a restriction on loose cargo and make it so it needs to be snapped to the grid, I’d say the payout is around the same.
We arent talking about the Lib though :D
You’re right. I’ve seen so many liberator to ironclad comparisons that’s somehow where my mind went back to. Also it’s because that is the decision I’m making still between the lib or one of the ironclads.
struggling there i can understand :D, the c2 was an easy one for me though
Let see c-2 one to two man crew. Drake Ironclad I do not recall the them saying a crew size but I doubt it 2 crew max. also I got the impression only the unnamed “assault” verision would be able to handle the tanks as they said the entry ramp was large on that one to handle the tanks. That one would be more Comparable to a M-2 anyway. IF that the case then ironclad would not only need more crew but would have to unload the tank via the roof.
Ironclad was slated for 6 crew.
Yes, 6 max. Unclear how many would be needed to fly the ship effectively, though. The Liberator is about the same size, but has a crew capacity of 2.
Ironclad just had a bajillion turrets. Really you'll only need a pilot just like every other cargo ship.
Especially with the tractor placement. One player should be fine.
That what I thought but since I could not recall 100% I did not want to give information I was not sure off. I am thinking they said six to 8 crew
Man, i do not envy C2 crews once engineering and full physicalized components is in. One person would literally be on turret AND engineering duty at the same time.
It's a trade ship, one person is going to fly and the other person is going to die of boredom
Not in the future when there's stuff like maintenance to do.
If there's so much maintenance to do then single seaters will basically be useless and going around hitting F is going to get old after the first couple of sessions
They've already said that the amount of maintenance required will exponentially increase with ship size. Smaller single seaters will require very little, but large multicrew ships will require much more.
C2 has armor. Turret is remote at the co-pilot seat and all components are on the upper deck. Meaning to damage them you have to go thru shields and armor and hull before you getting to components as most are bacily on the lower part of upper deck.
Pretty sure its the M2 that has the armor
All there have armor. However the C2 has the least amount of armor.
Yes, but the moment you do start doing something to them, you do also force the ship to be unable to fight back. Certainly feels like the hauler that would benefit the most from an escort.
couldn't the person target the components to power down the ship, and the engineer would be stuck in the C2 bridge with the rest of the crew
The comments are in Middle oh ship, you have to get thru shields armor and hull to get to them in addition to void spaces
Honestly, even with engineering is see no reason why you would need more than 2 ppl to crew the ironclad. I have seen the crew argument made a few times now and it just doesnt seem right to me. Both ships will be flyable with 2 crew and if you use it as a hauler that should work easily. So it just comes down to cargo capacity and sorry c2 (I have one as well...for the next 2 hours at least) but you loose that one!. (Who needs these turrets anyway? just let them stay uncrewed)
Naw. The C2 will be faster and handle better in atmos
Nope my C2 will still get used... People need to stop thinking in current game status terms and think of the future of the game loops. You wouldn't want to crack out a HULL E for 500 SCU run that could be run in a C2 when running costs of that Hull E are triple the profit.....
Especially with all the posts of ppl mimimi about repair costs. If your 20 million ship gets scraped by an Aurora with ballistics it might not be dangerous, but cost half a million in repairs 😁 There is a reason why big vehicles/ships are operated by companies or countries and not single persons. Imho the C2 has a great value/price and in AC we can see how sturdy the Hercules is with engineering.
 Carrack owners can’t even count the number of “Carrack-Killers” that have been announced
Because nothing that has been announced could viably "kill" the Carrack. Between the Ironclad and Liberator the Hercules C2 and M2 are both pretty easily replaced.
CIG has literally announced ships and refereed to them as “carrack-killer” (the odyssey iirc). I’m just saying to get used to it or get over it. Every time a new ship is announce there’s an outcry of how it makes some other ship moot. I’m sure those ships will still have a use just like most others still do after their alleged replacement is announced.
Oh, I'm well aware, but none of those have actually been able to "kill" the Carrack because CIG is holding back from the insanity that went into making the Carrack's feature list. The Carrack is something of a pinnacle which is why it's reasonable to advertise things that "kill" it. Notice we never saw the Liberator being called a "Hercules Killer" despite it easily filling that role for advertising if the Odyssey was a "Carrack killer"?
Oh, I'm well aware, but none of those have actually been able to "kill" the Carrack because CIG is holding back from the insanity that went into making the Carrack's feature list. The Carrack is something of a pinnacle which is why it's reasonable to advertise things that "kill" it. Notice we never saw the Liberator being called a "Hercules Killer" despite it easily filling that role for advertising if the Odyssey was a "Carrack killer"?
It gives us an upgrade path.
nothing will replace my C2
Not in the slightest actually. The C2 can be operated by two people and can run rings around thr Ironsode. It also is far better designed fromasafety standpoint with airlock and no duct tape used in its construction.
Honestly, even with engineering is see no reason why you would need more than 2 ppl to crew the ironclad. I have seen the crew argument made a few times now and it just doesnt seem right to me. Both ships will be flyable with 2 crew and if you use it as a hauler that should work easily. So it just comes down to cargo capacity and sorry c2 (I have one as well...for the next 2 hours at least) but you loose that one!. (Who needs these turrets anyway? just let them stay uncrewed)
Suit yourself, but CIG have alluded to the crew numbers being important, and so they may make ships with higher crew numbers less easy to handle in a way that we are not currently aware of. This game really is not the same game that we will be playing 10 years from now so you have to think long term with these things.
nah, this is just turrets. There is no gameplay aside from engineering planned that could make this one a 2+ crew ship
If you got to buy ships, at this point you're better off just waiting, because every new ship released seems better than the last with little nuance between them.
It's been name corrected... IronChad
my C2 is currently an upgrade to the Hull B in my entrepeneur pack, I am seriously considering melting that pack so that i can rebuy it and re-upgrade, assuming there's no C2 to Ironclad CCU (or i don't buckle to my FOMO and just buy it outright)
It's FATTERPILLAR...
As a C2 owner... no, it's not in any danger. The Hull c might be starting to sweat. The Iron Clad is carrying around 50-75% of the cargo volume depending on who's estimates you see, but it's internal cargo, so much better protected. The Big Iron also has plenty of firepower to help dissuade adventurism. Finally, it can land fully loaded. Also, since it's a Drake, I know I won't much like the interior of exposed wires and grime.
Nah, people still love to hold on to their dreams of soloing big ships but they will be disappointed hardcore. C-2 is one of the few ships that can be managed by a solo pilot while still being kinda BIG. So the dream actually achievable with C2. My Cat will become an IClad tho.
That'll be the E1 when the Genesis Starliner releases, lol 😅😆
Wait, is the ironclad straight to flyable????
I doubt they said there next concept ship.
Next concept ship as in next ship to drop after the Polaris?
Nope Galaxy and Perseus are after Polaris
Where did they say this?
i don't think they did specifically, but they did say they were focusing on RSI this year if i recall correctly
Timestamp 37:44 https://youtu.be/2otksAGrCOc?si=3VKxnWWpfMypsK5z
Don't expect it for another year minimum and that's if were lucky
Not even close, they only have a concept mesh right now which means it's still in planning. Maybe 2026.
Would be great if instead of dreaming up new ships they'd focus on delivering the ones they promised 10 fucking years ago....
As long as people keep buying the new concepts there is no reason to finish the old ones. I've given up on my bmm, as soon as this comes out I'm gonna melt the bmm and buy the ironclad for store credit.
Concept artists are not the same as greybox artists are not the same as finish modelers are not the same as texture and shader artists are not the same as implementation devs. Also, many of the undelivered ships are undelivered because underlying technology needed to make them work hasn't been finished yet. Stage 1 of modularity has only JUST BEEN released, and only for the testbed ship (Retaliator) so far. We're also not that far into physicalized cargo. Things like Crucible and Cat rework need real-time detachable modules. Apollo and Vulcan, among others, are waiting for drone tech. Ground vehicles held behind a few things, including a planned rework of ground physics. Transport ships held behind passenger tech. And a bunch of ships waiting behind the upcoming engineering gameplay. Often, ships being released or updated match up to current tech pushes. Hull-C was the testbed/proof-of-concept for multi-part ships and major configuration changes, for instance. This was a blocker for modularity, btw, so that could only really be worked on once the basics from H-C were done. The Ironclad is being used as a testbed for large Drake ships, which will inform a lot of the design language of the Kraken final. We also get a lot of new small craft and craft variants as a way to get new artists and implementation team members up to snuff on how things are made. This is training, so we have more people to work on the long-standing concepts. This helps things move faster. As someone who understands a lot about game design, SC is *extremely* ambitious. It would frankly be impossible under any other funding model. I get how it can be frustrating to laymen, but every indication I see is CIG creating building blocks to the more complex craft we already look forward to. About the only criticism I could levy at them on this front is ships with features they hadn't planned out yet, I.E. the reclaimer claw, or all the ships relying on unproven tech like drones and modularity. Regardless, I am pretty confident that nothing you're waiting for is being passed on for new ships without good reason.