Thanks again to Star Destroyer for their renders and be sure to check out their www.scorg.tools site chock full of Star Citizen Tools for your PU adventures.
It's a combat logistics capital ship, with hauling capabilities or a full on 2 part market with enough habs to fit a small army of NPCs to help run it. Doubt it could be run by one player but think a small group of folks you trust and pile of NPCs could get that ship running moderately well I believe - especially if you are just running it once a week etc.
@@lystic9392 In the future, we will have LFG companions (Looking For Group) where people will always be seeking out crew for these big ships, so i bet you will have plenty of opportunities to be onboard the beautiful Kraken, whether owning one or not😊
Along with the enabling of the Kraken to be pushed into the ship development pipeline, the Ironclad concept will also likely cause the Caterpillar to be brought up to gold standard. Currently, there are no physical components on the Caterpillar for the main part of the ship or the command module. Also, the brochure for the Ironclad says that there will be jump seats in its command module, where there currently aren't. Definitely looks like an overhaul of the Caterpillar is in the works once CIG gets working on Drake ships.
Will be great to see a pass on the Cat not just for modules and quality of life improvements, but also to fully realize its modularity with options. Tali shows how this will feel and the swapping at any station modules will be extremely useful making most of its mission/cargo areas
I think flying from the center bridge would be pretty bad. You would not be able to see the ground at all. The side bridge is better for fist person landings. Just my opinon. Nice vid will be nice to hear some q and a answers
Q&A should be this week, will help shed a lot of light on the nuances of both craft I think. I guess for me its all about focus of a bridge, I like a flying bridge design like caps often have with good common visibility from top middle of ship even set back a bit is ok if it is to fit a hangar or other services which you can see from bridge... but yes at cost of landing visiblity. Fair point on side command pod helping with a focus on landing giving an advantage there - in particular on the higher speed low drag Ironclad Assault that will be handy for drop offs you dont want to stick around for.
Hmm seeing it beside the Caterpillar gives me great perspective, where the Caterpillar is my second favorite ship, aesthetically, and has what I think is the most believable interior, for how I imagine spaceships would look. Sort of like the interior of a submarine, or industrial ships, with every pipe, valve, nut, bolt and wire is exposed, easy to access and fix. Drake is always one of my favorite manufacturers for that reason. Very immersive interiors! The Caterpillar is perfect for me and any cargo I do, so I'll have to see the Ironclad in game. I imagine my brother and his friends will buy both variants, so I will have access. This is the first time a video of yours was suggested by TH-cam, on my home page. I keep my SC subscription list small, but will definitely subscribe! Good video! Thanks! Look forward to seeing you on Captains Table again!😊
The commaand module should have a tractor beam the same as the caterpillar as they stated they are identical, this will give it a loading or recovery role on either version of the Ironclads.
I think they will just make the turret on the command module interchange able from guns to a tractor beam. It would be nice to give the caterpillar just a bit more firepower.
@@BunkerSquirrel I think their remarks are more to do with Drake ships not having escape pods then being it's only function additional to being where the Ironclad is flown from.
What everyone seem to be looking for is a carrier type of ship... something to be used as a home base to do stuff in. Looking at just about every other ship out there you have limitations witch limit the ships you can fit in it. If it is not limited by width or height you have some kind of artificial limitation on the entrance which keeps you from putting that ship you actually want in there. Airlock, struts, chains, walkways... you name it... If CIG envisions you to be able to fit a Cyclon in there, you can be damned sure that you will not be able to fit anything larger than that. Looking at these images I would say that the Cutty, which I believe most people want to be able to land in the Ironclad will be ever so slightly too big to fit inside the Ironclad easily. You will be able to fit the "normal" C8 variants, Auroras etc... but anything bigger like the F7 series or such... not so sure about that... The cutty, very unlikely even... Perhaps you may be able to wiggle your way in there with it, but It will most likely be something artifificial limitation that keeps you from doing it at all... and that is just it... Every time it is tantalizingly close to do what you actually want... but in the end you can't... I was tempted by the Ironclad as well, but I will wait for it to release to make the final judgement.
Regular Ironclad will have best chance to fit something like a Cutty in there - but yes it's a could go either way game of just how creative do you have to get to actually get in and out to actually use ship even if it can super close to edges. Ironclad Assault is smaller... but if it does turn out in the Q&A to have a retractable top roof I go back to the CIG page showing 4 square of Nova tanks in there with some width between them and cannot shake thats a decent size footprint to fit a ship in.
@@RedJay I know, I saw that picture as well, and that IS a decent size for sure... but the question remains... will it fit? My worries is that there will be things like balkonies or something like that on the sides that makes it easy to fit cargo, but not so easy to fit the ship... even with the retractable roop... or that it is just ever so slightly to low for the cutty to actually fit... kind of like when you can fit the ship inside the carrack but the roof won't allow you to. I don't say it will not fit... I just say, judging from other ships... CIG really LOVE to impose artificial limiters to what you can do... because they don't want you to stray from their vision... Only time will tell... but for now I will keep my money and wait to see what fits and what not :)
Honestly, I wish CIG would make it so that vehicles (ground and space) require a specific pad. So can't quantum if a vehicle isn't on a pad. I feel like they spend a lot of time trying to restrict the design of a ship to prevent it from being used as a carrier. Heck the first thing anyone ever asks is what vehicles fit in X ship. Then they could create ships that specifically be used like players want.
Doing some very very basic calculations from the cargo container size. I think the ironclad could hold small ships (size2) e.g. a prospector, vulture, fighter. But it might not be able to hold medium ships like the cutless black
The issue isn't the size of the hold, It's the top opening, as at least with the diagrams, the hold is bigger than the opening. So probably your going to fit a light fighter, I doubt a prospector would fit due to being too long.
@@Mikalent 100% that's going to be the limiting factor. And hopefully we find out soon. But trying to compare the cargo boxes I'm hopeful it might fit some of the other small size ships.
It would be nice to have a Captains quarters in the back of the ship, that overlooks the stern. The Ironclad would be the perfect ship for that purpose, with a large window or smaller windows, that look out over those 10 beautiful massive main thrusters. It is a time honored practice in days of old wind & sail Privateers. It is very traditional and a great opportunity for CIG.
Feels like a 18 wheeler or a river barge. The operational deck is very similar. Drop and hook cargo operations. Decouple the empty cargo holder hookup to the loaded trailer and fly off. I can think of a number of smuggling methods or black market handoff scenarios. Hell even a legitimate operation would benefit from these versatile ships
Barge is certainly a good fit. Ironclad Assault in particular has more professional uses, I believe folks will offer vehicle repair and move... and some broken down abandoned vehicles on side... out in the more report parts of Pyro.
@@RedJay I agree, the ironclad and the caterpillar are incredibly unique. And with the caterpillar modules on the way all Drake fleet could be the most adaptable merchant fleet in verse.
i agree with you that the center should be the control center. the detachable one should be more an escape pod. or at least as a small shuttle, say an org has a bunch of these kitted out for different situations and the snall pod moves them around, like a shunter at a train yard still looking forward to owning both the ironclad and kraken!
I genuinely wish they had just left the command module, Cat specific. That central area is a perfect bridge location for a ship that size. Love my asymmetrical vessels, but this was a poor choice to me.
Everyone keeps focusing on the space aspects of the IronClad Assault. The best feature is the fact it is a mobile ground FOB that acts as a base for superheavy ground vehicles. It can fully replace all components on all ground vehicles and repair them. It can also refuel and rearm them. So say having one parked off the side of jumptown with a bunch of centurions and ballistas, would enable an org to stay there indefinitely so long as an A2 doesn't show up. Due to all the weapons and armor it can even fend off folks in the sky itself in dire circumstances. The IronClad is not meant to carry ships. What you are talking about is making the ship do something that it isn't designed to. Which is fine but of course it won't be as effective.
SC has always been a if it fits, it sits as a philosophy - for the regular Ironclad this means as one of its many roles will be transporting working ships and/or taking disabled vessels small enough to fit in it cargo bay and move it as needed. Is it a primary use case? No, but it adds to many Orgs who need a few different roles filled with limited amount of ships.
Yes I had the MISC HULL D and the hull c as a loaner I got so fed up with the bugs with misc ships I decided to exchange it for the ironclad probably got to wait 5 years before I get it so I guess the new loaner the catapilla will do for now
I’m concluding I cannot decide whether I want to the Assault or base variant. Probably “both” is the only correct answer lol. I also would love a Kraken as the ultimate carrier option some day, but it’s probably one to earn in game.
id like to see a carrier variant of the ironclad and to make it special make it have 2 cat command modules one on each side but make then both snub fighters.
That would be interesting design - perhaps middle is just a pad not a cargo bay on such a variant to fill out its roll? Place turrets on the pad corners to round it out and add some extra fuel to share with this neat set of ships.
Very cool comparison, totally agree. Just curious, where are there rumors about the Kraken being in SQ42? Any links or quotes you can give, or is it just community guessing?
Idris series loads through a ramp at rear hangar door - Kraken enjoys the wide open aircraft carrier style flight deck for most of its pads (ignoring the 2 hangars for a moment) but does rely on a large elevator on the bottom to move cargo in. Trade offs.
i bought the ironclad yesterday. just mainly because i'm in a more militaristic clan/organization to transport tanks and being able to shoot back at the opponents. But until the ironclad is flight ready i play the A2 Hercules
Often, seeing the Caterpillar and remembering it will be modular, I envision moving the cargo sections (except bow), between the command/observation section and engineering section, but the last I've heard the command/observation section can't be moved? ;-)
Right, the cargo areas in the Middle lets call it are the modules and POSSIBLY the front will be a module of a different type of "slot" lets say - like the Tali has different dimmensions and options in front and back modules.
i find the slight differences between the Command Modules of the Cat and Ironclad telling. I expect them not to be interchangable. Not for any good reasons besides "design decision"
Great job on this, Redjay. In the comparison of the Ironclad and Liberator, it looks like the roof section of the Ironclad is the size of one Liberator XS landing pad. Your thoughts?
I think so, and I'm sure there will be some creative screenshots with more packed in (especially with furies) but at end of day its what can average pilots pull off and consider damaged ships potentially limping back to Ironclad for ride out after the fight with things like thruster damage mising landing gear compontents etc... even with the standard Ironclads incredible tractor beam system you are not going to want to pack ships in like sardines in a closed hangar like that.
I can understand why the command module was included in the Ironclad but its the one thing that makes me hesitant if I want to buy a Ironclad. Just seemed like it was a bit too similar to a Caterpillar for my liking. If they made it similar to how the Carrack has two pilot positions with the command module being the "escape pod", I think I would be more excited for it.
I could see that additional stations in the Command Module - I mean if you are insisting on designing the ship to work only from this location adding another station would be a smart move.
That's a good play, for many who have fleets of pair of the same multi-crew ship or ships in same category it makes sense to spread out your fleet. In your case you have CCU ladders to work through - and unless you really need a Cat loaner could have that CCU for Ironclad on standby if the ship works out for what you need. Biggest question is will it work well with a Reclaimer, and those big containers kicking down the large elevator at back would be less then ideal but Ironclad would certainly not slow things down... but curious if back of ship will work effectively post a pass giving it the proper cargo container workflow.
@@RedJay NPC crew will most likley take the MGSV aproch and limitations on your crew limit = bunks in ships you own> you own 2 ships with 1 bed each thats 2 drone ships with crew to wingman for you THEY WANT THE WING COMMANDER NPCs thats part of the signiture of Chris roberts games. The ironclad was just a "DAMN my helldivers capital ship is awesome, oh i called it will of Iron weeks ago." then ironclad comes out. bit sus.
The comparison makes the caterpillar look the same length if not a tad longer however the Ironclad is about 27, almost 28 feet longer. Really awesome video though.
cant we land on the ironclad top? it have a huge flat top, also if you can have fuel as cargo like big 32scu tanks inside your ship you can have a bunch of snubs like fury and use them to fight lol.
Fuel cargo will be a thing - not sure on keeping a ship on top of the doors - in particular when you enter quantum likely would be an issue, but certainly worth testing! 890 Jump of all ships was often a test of such a setup trying to double its hangar space (and carry ships too wide for its triangular opening)
We've all secured the CCU's, and with the IronClad quite possibly not released for at least 2/3 yrs, and yeah, the ships aesthetically pleasing, not at all exciting, and average at best. So isn't all this speculation and angst a little mute and premature, after all, we're going to get CIG's rendition of the Ironclad either way, and god forbid we don't want the Assault to have that opening roof, its the main feature that sets them both apart?.
Cat has large doors on each module on both sides that drop down to ground like lift gates off the back of a box truck/lorry. In the Mule sale art it shows them all dropped brining cargo en masse down to ground quickly. Kind of an in-between.
It's a game of usable space with the Ironclads - the true ship capabilties in many ways start and stop in the large cargobay which thankfully has excellent access options.
@@merc9nine The BMM has a large grav lev plate on the bottom of the ship that acts as a cargo egress mechanism.This is supported by a tractor beam gantry rail style like the Ironclad standard.Curious how it will go when actually in use.
Purchasing the Iron Clad Assault does not equate to the Caterpillar's function or purpose. The Iron Clad Assault's value is over rated and it's not worth what CIG\RSI asks for it.
CIG used the term Faterpillar to describe the Ironclad series during development. It is a bigger ship and can handle cargo better the Cat with firepower on the Ironclad Assault specifically stronger then the Cat. Now when we talk about the vehicel repair and component construction capbilities of the Ironclad Assault, it would be fair to argue that is acting like a module that cannot be removed - which the Cat eventually will not have to worry about due to its modularity and possible module options making the ship extremely versitile even if the modules themselves are smaller and use of said modules (aside from the cargo modules already in the Cat) limiting its cargo capacity each module added. I guess it depends on your playstyle and goals.
@@RedJay Well, I was interested in the ICAss, but a loaner of a Cat is not going to cut it for me. If the ICAss cost equates to the Cat, then yeah, I'll buy in.
Thanks again to Star Destroyer for their renders and be sure to check out their www.scorg.tools site chock full of Star Citizen Tools for your PU adventures.
hi dose Star-Destroyer have a discord channel ?
For some reason this made me want a Kraken even though I'm mostly a solitary player.
It's a combat logistics capital ship, with hauling capabilities or a full on 2 part market with enough habs to fit a small army of NPCs to help run it. Doubt it could be run by one player but think a small group of folks you trust and pile of NPCs could get that ship running moderately well I believe - especially if you are just running it once a week etc.
@@RedJay It's just so alluring. I just don't know that I'd have the amount of predictable spare time I'd need for something like that.
I'm the same, but it is definitely an in-game goal for me; even if it is just something that I get to sit in and look pretty.
@@lystic9392 In the future, we will have LFG companions (Looking For Group) where people will always be seeking out crew for these big ships, so i bet you will have plenty of opportunities to be onboard the beautiful Kraken, whether owning one or not😊
@@lunamaria1048 That is a good point. It's easy to forget as well that you don't necessarily need to own a ship to be on a ship.
Thanks for the comparison, it will be awesome as CIG hopefully starts turning out more of these bigger ships.
Exciting times ahead!
Thanks for the shout out, much appreciated 👍
Thanks Again!
Along with the enabling of the Kraken to be pushed into the ship development pipeline, the Ironclad concept will also likely cause the Caterpillar to be brought up to gold standard. Currently, there are no physical components on the Caterpillar for the main part of the ship or the command module. Also, the brochure for the Ironclad says that there will be jump seats in its command module, where there currently aren't. Definitely looks like an overhaul of the Caterpillar is in the works once CIG gets working on Drake ships.
Will be great to see a pass on the Cat not just for modules and quality of life improvements, but also to fully realize its modularity with options. Tali shows how this will feel and the swapping at any station modules will be extremely useful making most of its mission/cargo areas
I think flying from the center bridge would be pretty bad. You would not be able to see the ground at all.
The side bridge is better for fist person landings.
Just my opinon.
Nice vid will be nice to hear some q and a answers
Q&A should be this week, will help shed a lot of light on the nuances of both craft I think. I guess for me its all about focus of a bridge, I like a flying bridge design like caps often have with good common visibility from top middle of ship even set back a bit is ok if it is to fit a hangar or other services which you can see from bridge... but yes at cost of landing visiblity. Fair point on side command pod helping with a focus on landing giving an advantage there - in particular on the higher speed low drag Ironclad Assault that will be handy for drop offs you dont want to stick around for.
@@RedJay i agree and personally i like a bridge like the perseus for a big ship like you but this thing is a huuuuge box haha cheers!
Central bridge is a control area for the tractor beams to load the cargo into the bay. The side command module is where you fly the ship from....
Hmm seeing it beside the Caterpillar gives me great perspective, where the Caterpillar is my second favorite ship, aesthetically, and has what I think is the most believable interior, for how I imagine spaceships would look. Sort of like the interior of a submarine, or industrial ships, with every pipe, valve, nut, bolt and wire is exposed, easy to access and fix. Drake is always one of my favorite manufacturers for that reason. Very immersive interiors! The Caterpillar is perfect for me and any cargo I do, so I'll have to see the Ironclad in game. I imagine my brother and his friends will buy both variants, so I will have access.
This is the first time a video of yours was suggested by TH-cam, on my home page. I keep my SC subscription list small, but will definitely subscribe!
Good video! Thanks! Look forward to seeing you on Captains Table again!😊
The commaand module should have a tractor beam the same as the caterpillar as they stated they are identical, this will give it a loading or recovery role on either version of the Ironclads.
they explicitly said the command module was intended for only emergencies, so may not be able to re-connect
I think they will just make the turret on the command module interchange able from guns to a tractor beam. It would be nice to give the caterpillar just a bit more firepower.
@@wild_lee_coyote The caterpillar command module has a tractor beam control station on the lower level for the nose mounted tractor beam.
@@BunkerSquirrel I think their remarks are more to do with Drake ships not having escape pods then being it's only function additional to being where the Ironclad is flown from.
What everyone seem to be looking for is a carrier type of ship... something to be used as a home base to do stuff in.
Looking at just about every other ship out there you have limitations witch limit the ships you can fit in it. If it is not limited by width or height you have some kind of artificial limitation on the entrance which keeps you from putting that ship you actually want in there. Airlock, struts, chains, walkways... you name it... If CIG envisions you to be able to fit a Cyclon in there, you can be damned sure that you will not be able to fit anything larger than that.
Looking at these images I would say that the Cutty, which I believe most people want to be able to land in the Ironclad will be ever so slightly too big to fit inside the Ironclad easily. You will be able to fit the "normal" C8 variants, Auroras etc... but anything bigger like the F7 series or such... not so sure about that... The cutty, very unlikely even... Perhaps you may be able to wiggle your way in there with it, but It will most likely be something artifificial limitation that keeps you from doing it at all... and that is just it... Every time it is tantalizingly close to do what you actually want... but in the end you can't...
I was tempted by the Ironclad as well, but I will wait for it to release to make the final judgement.
Regular Ironclad will have best chance to fit something like a Cutty in there - but yes it's a could go either way game of just how creative do you have to get to actually get in and out to actually use ship even if it can super close to edges. Ironclad Assault is smaller... but if it does turn out in the Q&A to have a retractable top roof I go back to the CIG page showing 4 square of Nova tanks in there with some width between them and cannot shake thats a decent size footprint to fit a ship in.
@@RedJay I know, I saw that picture as well, and that IS a decent size for sure... but the question remains... will it fit?
My worries is that there will be things like balkonies or something like that on the sides that makes it easy to fit cargo, but not so easy to fit the ship... even with the retractable roop... or that it is just ever so slightly to low for the cutty to actually fit... kind of like when you can fit the ship inside the carrack but the roof won't allow you to.
I don't say it will not fit... I just say, judging from other ships... CIG really LOVE to impose artificial limiters to what you can do... because they don't want you to stray from their vision...
Only time will tell... but for now I will keep my money and wait to see what fits and what not :)
Honestly, I wish CIG would make it so that vehicles (ground and space) require a specific pad. So can't quantum if a vehicle isn't on a pad. I feel like they spend a lot of time trying to restrict the design of a ship to prevent it from being used as a carrier. Heck the first thing anyone ever asks is what vehicles fit in X ship.
Then they could create ships that specifically be used like players want.
Doing some very very basic calculations from the cargo container size. I think the ironclad could hold small ships (size2) e.g. a prospector, vulture, fighter. But it might not be able to hold medium ships like the cutless black
The issue isn't the size of the hold, It's the top opening, as at least with the diagrams, the hold is bigger than the opening. So probably your going to fit a light fighter, I doubt a prospector would fit due to being too long.
@@Mikalent 100% that's going to be the limiting factor. And hopefully we find out soon. But trying to compare the cargo boxes I'm hopeful it might fit some of the other small size ships.
I also hope to see a decent selection of ships, in particular utility ships and fighters to choose from in the Ironclad
It would be nice to have a Captains quarters in the back of the ship, that overlooks the stern.
The Ironclad would be the perfect ship for that purpose, with a large window or smaller windows, that look out over those 10 beautiful massive main thrusters. It is a time honored practice in days of old wind & sail Privateers. It is very traditional and a great opportunity for CIG.
It reminds me of the Black Sun Vigo ship from Star Wars Galaxies.
That would be awesome
Love your SC videos. Thank you! I upgraded to the Ironclad. Hyped for thos ship! 😊
Thank you as well! Ironclad will treat you well I'm sure.
Feels like a 18 wheeler or a river barge. The operational deck is very similar. Drop and hook cargo operations. Decouple the empty cargo holder hookup to the loaded trailer and fly off. I can think of a number of smuggling methods or black market handoff scenarios. Hell even a legitimate operation would benefit from these versatile ships
Barge is certainly a good fit. Ironclad Assault in particular has more professional uses, I believe folks will offer vehicle repair and move... and some broken down abandoned vehicles on side... out in the more report parts of Pyro.
@@RedJay I agree, the ironclad and the caterpillar are incredibly unique. And with the caterpillar modules on the way all Drake fleet could be the most adaptable merchant fleet in verse.
i agree with you that the center should be the control center. the detachable one should be more an escape pod. or at least as a small shuttle, say an org has a bunch of these kitted out for different situations and the snall pod moves them around, like a shunter at a train yard
still looking forward to owning both the ironclad and kraken!
for 20% more, buy the liberator
It's a good option.
I genuinely wish they had just left the command module, Cat specific. That central area is a perfect bridge location for a ship that size. Love my asymmetrical vessels, but this was a poor choice to me.
Can't agree more
Everyone keeps focusing on the space aspects of the IronClad Assault. The best feature is the fact it is a mobile ground FOB that acts as a base for superheavy ground vehicles. It can fully replace all components on all ground vehicles and repair them. It can also refuel and rearm them. So say having one parked off the side of jumptown with a bunch of centurions and ballistas, would enable an org to stay there indefinitely so long as an A2 doesn't show up. Due to all the weapons and armor it can even fend off folks in the sky itself in dire circumstances.
The IronClad is not meant to carry ships. What you are talking about is making the ship do something that it isn't designed to. Which is fine but of course it won't be as effective.
SC has always been a if it fits, it sits as a philosophy - for the regular Ironclad this means as one of its many roles will be transporting working ships and/or taking disabled vessels small enough to fit in it cargo bay and move it as needed. Is it a primary use case? No, but it adds to many Orgs who need a few different roles filled with limited amount of ships.
Great comparison, visuals and content!
Amazing Renders. Cant wait for the bigger ships like BMM Poilaris Idris Ironclad Arastra and so on.
Going to be a crazy rest of the year into next.
@@phoenixsui same waiting for the Arastra
Cannot wait for the ironclad to come
Going to be a beautiful day seeing Ironclads landing across Moons
Yes I had the MISC HULL D and the hull c as a loaner I got so fed up with the bugs with misc ships I decided to exchange it for the ironclad probably got to wait 5 years before I get it so I guess the new loaner the catapilla will do for now
yeah, we definitely need more planet side cargo ship around 1000 to 2000 SCU range. especially with base building.
Excactly. Outposts will highlight the capabilities of both Ironclads
I own a Kraken and Ironclad as well as a Javelin. And many other ships.
I have those but melted my Kraken for an Idris-P/K few years back. Great to have options for an Org.
Love the proportions of the Ironclad, next to the Caterpillar
Certainly helps picture things.
I’m concluding I cannot decide whether I want to the Assault or base variant. Probably “both” is the only correct answer lol.
I also would love a Kraken as the ultimate carrier option some day, but it’s probably one to earn in game.
It's a great long term goal to have - and either of the Ironclads will help you earn it haha.
id like to see a carrier variant of the ironclad and to make it special make it have 2 cat command modules one on each side but make then both snub fighters.
That would be interesting design - perhaps middle is just a pad not a cargo bay on such a variant to fill out its roll? Place turrets on the pad corners to round it out and add some extra fuel to share with this neat set of ships.
Very cool comparison, totally agree. Just curious, where are there rumors about the Kraken being in SQ42? Any links or quotes you can give, or is it just community guessing?
Ironclad really does make me wonder how Kraken will load efficiently.
Seems we're destined for a fleet of ships in this range. Not even mad.
Idris series loads through a ramp at rear hangar door - Kraken enjoys the wide open aircraft carrier style flight deck for most of its pads (ignoring the 2 hangars for a moment) but does rely on a large elevator on the bottom to move cargo in. Trade offs.
i bought the ironclad yesterday. just mainly because i'm in a more militaristic clan/organization to transport tanks and being able to shoot back at the opponents. But until the ironclad is flight ready i play the A2 Hercules
Often, seeing the Caterpillar and remembering it will be modular, I envision moving the cargo sections (except bow), between the command/observation section and engineering section, but the last I've heard the command/observation section can't be moved? ;-)
Right, the cargo areas in the Middle lets call it are the modules and POSSIBLY the front will be a module of a different type of "slot" lets say - like the Tali has different dimmensions and options in front and back modules.
i find the slight differences between the Command Modules of the Cat and Ironclad telling. I expect them not to be interchangable. Not for any good reasons besides "design decision"
I think you're spot on unfortunately.
@@RedJay i stand corrected! Man am i glad to be wrong
Great job on this, Redjay. In the comparison of the Ironclad and Liberator, it looks like the roof section of the Ironclad is the size of one Liberator XS landing pad. Your thoughts?
I think so, and I'm sure there will be some creative screenshots with more packed in (especially with furies) but at end of day its what can average pilots pull off and consider damaged ships potentially limping back to Ironclad for ride out after the fight with things like thruster damage mising landing gear compontents etc... even with the standard Ironclads incredible tractor beam system you are not going to want to pack ships in like sardines in a closed hangar like that.
@RedJay It's Drake & looks like a sardine can, plus the roof peels back the same way, maybe? 😳 😀
I can understand why the command module was included in the Ironclad but its the one thing that makes me hesitant if I want to buy a Ironclad. Just seemed like it was a bit too similar to a Caterpillar for my liking. If they made it similar to how the Carrack has two pilot positions with the command module being the "escape pod", I think I would be more excited for it.
I could see that additional stations in the Command Module - I mean if you are insisting on designing the ship to work only from this location adding another station would be a smart move.
Caterpillar doesn't currently have ramps, they're just doors that open.
I like the Ironclad gonna have to work on getting a second reclaimer now to use the CCU i got.
That's a good play, for many who have fleets of pair of the same multi-crew ship or ships in same category it makes sense to spread out your fleet. In your case you have CCU ladders to work through - and unless you really need a Cat loaner could have that CCU for Ironclad on standby if the ship works out for what you need. Biggest question is will it work well with a Reclaimer, and those big containers kicking down the large elevator at back would be less then ideal but Ironclad would certainly not slow things down... but curious if back of ship will work effectively post a pass giving it the proper cargo container workflow.
@@RedJay NPC crew will most likley take the MGSV aproch and limitations on your crew limit = bunks in ships you own>
you own 2 ships with 1 bed each thats 2 drone ships with crew to wingman for you
THEY WANT THE WING COMMANDER NPCs thats part of the signiture of Chris roberts games.
The ironclad was just a "DAMN my helldivers capital ship is awesome, oh i called it will of Iron weeks ago."
then ironclad comes out.
bit sus.
Thx. More tools can hurt if the information is incorrect or misleading
The comparison makes the caterpillar look the same length if not a tad longer however the Ironclad is about 27, almost 28 feet longer. Really awesome video though.
I'm very excited for the lib. Those two bigger pads should be able to fit two scorpius right?
You may need to turn them sideways but they should fit based on current concept model.
All of these ships are awesome!
Can't agree more - love the variety of great ships.
cant we land on the ironclad top? it have a huge flat top, also if you can have fuel as cargo like big 32scu tanks inside your ship you can have a bunch of snubs like fury and use them to fight lol.
Fuel cargo will be a thing - not sure on keeping a ship on top of the doors - in particular when you enter quantum likely would be an issue, but certainly worth testing! 890 Jump of all ships was often a test of such a setup trying to double its hangar space (and carry ships too wide for its triangular opening)
Could you please also compare the Drake Ironclad base with the Banu MerchantMan?
I bought the ironclad is that possible to have these renders high resolution for wallpaper?
I'll check on this
We've all secured the CCU's, and with the IronClad quite possibly not released for at least 2/3 yrs, and yeah, the ships aesthetically pleasing, not at all exciting, and average at best. So isn't all this speculation and angst a little mute and premature, after all, we're going to get CIG's rendition of the Ironclad either way, and god forbid we don't want the Assault to have that opening roof, its the main feature that sets them both apart?.
As far as I know the Caterpillar doesn't have any ramps.
Cat has large doors on each module on both sides that drop down to ground like lift gates off the back of a box truck/lorry. In the Mule sale art it shows them all dropped brining cargo en masse down to ground quickly. Kind of an in-between.
Hi, How can I get my hand on these renders ?
I thought the Iron Clad as much bigger in comparison
It's a game of usable space with the Ironclads - the true ship capabilties in many ways start and stop in the large cargobay which thankfully has excellent access options.
@RedJay I got a BMM so I'm excited for the cargo room but it needs better access from what I've seen
@@merc9nine The BMM has a large grav lev plate on the bottom of the ship that acts as a cargo egress mechanism.This is supported by a tractor beam gantry rail style like the Ironclad standard.Curious how it will go when actually in use.
how big it is compare to C2?
Pls render an idris next to a kraken
Purchasing the Iron Clad Assault does not equate to the Caterpillar's function or purpose. The Iron Clad Assault's value is over rated and it's not worth what CIG\RSI asks for it.
CIG used the term Faterpillar to describe the Ironclad series during development. It is a bigger ship and can handle cargo better the Cat with firepower on the Ironclad Assault specifically stronger then the Cat. Now when we talk about the vehicel repair and component construction capbilities of the Ironclad Assault, it would be fair to argue that is acting like a module that cannot be removed - which the Cat eventually will not have to worry about due to its modularity and possible module options making the ship extremely versitile even if the modules themselves are smaller and use of said modules (aside from the cargo modules already in the Cat) limiting its cargo capacity each module added. I guess it depends on your playstyle and goals.
@@RedJay Well, I was interested in the ICAss, but a loaner of a Cat is not going to cut it for me. If the ICAss cost equates to the Cat, then yeah, I'll buy in.