Anybody else hates the Sabre?
- Thread starter Sonntag
- Start date
Sonntag said:
The problem on Raptor vs. Scimitar is that the only thing that the Scimitar has superior to the Raptor is a slight edge in handling (6/7/6 vs. 5/6/5 or thereabouts). The Raptor was faster both cruising and on afterburner, had more shields and armor, and had better guns and missiles.
That said, the one thing that I liked most about the Epee is that if a wing of enemy fighters was coming in (WC2 fighters don't break formation till they get within range of THEIR guns, not your guns), the Epee could actually shoot down one of them at long range before they break formation, cutting down the odds. I employed this tactic frequently in SO1 against the Gettysburg fighters.
Personally, I like the Sabre. Compared to the Crossbow and Broadsword it has afterburners. The thing to keep in mind with the Sabre though is its not a dedicated fighter, especially in its anti-ship role.
I have discovered, for my style of flying anyway, that two schools of tactics work best depending on enemy numbers. If there aren't too many then get in close and stay there and use the heavy firepower to quickly take out one or two of the enemy right away. Hopefully your fellow pilot(s) can keep the rest busy.
If the odds are greater, let your escort mix it up and stay on the fringes of the fight. This is where the afterburners come in handy, you can zip in, use that firepower to your advantage, and zip out again.
But I have to agree, it depends on how you fly and fight your ships if you like light fighters vs medium fighters vs heavy fighters vs bombers vs fighter/bombers.
I have discovered, for my style of flying anyway, that two schools of tactics work best depending on enemy numbers. If there aren't too many then get in close and stay there and use the heavy firepower to quickly take out one or two of the enemy right away. Hopefully your fellow pilot(s) can keep the rest busy.
If the odds are greater, let your escort mix it up and stay on the fringes of the fight. This is where the afterburners come in handy, you can zip in, use that firepower to your advantage, and zip out again.
But I have to agree, it depends on how you fly and fight your ships if you like light fighters vs medium fighters vs heavy fighters vs bombers vs fighter/bombers.
Nah, with a fast ship you can get in behind them like nobodys buisness and then hit the match-speed button. Then you just coast along pumping those great and powerful (if not slow) shots up their tail-pipe. (not so great on ships with turrets though usually ships with turrets are slower and fairly easy to hit from the side)
But if the enemy ships flys faster then 400 klicks, you need to wait pretty long on the the enemies tail, and prey he dosn't do evasiv stuff. And what'S the advantage having a fast ship, and then reduce your speed to the enemy ship, to shot it. That's what i meant with nullify(THX to Lt.Death100) speed and handling.
Delance
Victory, you say?
Star Rider said:
Almost everyone knew the the world was round by that time. Columbus was not some crazy yahoo, and the spanish crown did not finance a mission that they thought would end up failing.
A single gun salvo of a Jalthi is also dangerous. Don't be in front of Kilrathi heavy fighters when you are on a Confed light fighter. But the Jalthio was much less dangerous than a Jalkehi, because it did have a weak spot.
The most dangerous part of the Jalkehi to an Epee or Ferret is ther rear guns. That turret can go past trought the shields and armor faster than you can take it out on a "fair" fight, so you must doge it.
The best strategy is to use the shelton slide maneuver and attack its flanks.
What I didn't like on the Epee was the gun configuration, both the choice and position. There something wrong with the Particle guns, I never liked them, and it seems a lot of people had the same impression.
PopsiclePete
Mission programmer
Really ? Strangely particle guns were my favourites in WC2. I can't understand why someone wouldn't like themDelance said:
Gun configuration on Epee sucks? Centerlined Cannons allow to to concentrate the firepower to one spot (see we lack convergence setting in WC).
The particle cannon, is just that, a Cannon, and it's drawback is energy consumption and refire rate. But it strength is damage, range and speed,
which highly favours an offensive fighter.
Let's see the other choices, the neutron gun, slow, damage is so lala. I don't really like that gun, look at the Hornet in Stand Off , even without convergence problems, this gun is simple worse, and is the " Scim of guns"
The Mass Driver, fast, and packs a punch, but it's projectiles are slow. The enemy got about double the time to evade a shot, then with Lasers or Particles. The mass driver is a gun to kill Heavies with.
The Lasers, fast, good range, but lack the punch. Also has a good refire rate. Two Lasers aren't enough for an attack fighter, but better then the Mass Drivers.
The particle cannon, is just that, a Cannon, and it's drawback is energy consumption and refire rate. But it strength is damage, range and speed,
which highly favours an offensive fighter.
Let's see the other choices, the neutron gun, slow, damage is so lala. I don't really like that gun, look at the Hornet in Stand Off , even without convergence problems, this gun is simple worse, and is the " Scim of guns"
The Mass Driver, fast, and packs a punch, but it's projectiles are slow. The enemy got about double the time to evade a shot, then with Lasers or Particles. The mass driver is a gun to kill Heavies with.
The Lasers, fast, good range, but lack the punch. Also has a good refire rate. Two Lasers aren't enough for an attack fighter, but better then the Mass Drivers.
Lt.Death100
Spaceman
I think the reason some people hate the particle cannon is they like to spray-n'-pray.
Delance
Victory, you say?
PopsiclePete said:Really ? Strangely particle guns were my favourites in WC2. I can't understand why someone wouldn't like them
Oh, they are noisy, and the refire rate is not good. I don't know.
Icefire69 said:
The position of the guns on Epee is just strange. The only ship worst than that, on the main games, is the Bearcat.
Mass Drivers are much better than lasers. They have a great refire rate, and do decent damage.
Edx said:
He didn't knew there was a continent between the Europe and India.
Lt.Death100
Spaceman
I have no idea what you're talking about, the Bearcat was pretty good and the epee was good if you are good at dodging shots. But whats wrong with the epee's gun positions?Delance said:
Delance
Victory, you say?
Well, I didn't like it. And I didn't like the gun configuration on the Bearcat. And the Bearcat had some auto-target thing on the guns (auto-aiming to the ITTS or something) that made it harder to actually hit things. I don't know, I just prefer all the other ships you can fly in those games.
dawntreader
Spaceman
Any mission in the Sabre was my favorite. I was truly multi purpose. I don't really like ships that are extremely specialized like the Epee or Broadsword. The Sabre had a good missle loadout, excellent guns, excellent shield recharge rate, and high survivability.
The Epee sucked out loud. Slow refire rate, paper mache armor, and poor survivability. Fast ships need fast guns. The Epee was really only good against other light fighters.
My personal favorite ships have always been the jack-of-all-trades fighters. That is why the Vindicator in WC4 was one of my favorites. Many people knock that fighter, but I like the its varied armament. It was slow though.
The Epee sucked out loud. Slow refire rate, paper mache armor, and poor survivability. Fast ships need fast guns. The Epee was really only good against other light fighters.
My personal favorite ships have always been the jack-of-all-trades fighters. That is why the Vindicator in WC4 was one of my favorites. Many people knock that fighter, but I like the its varied armament. It was slow though.
Delance said:
The reall question on Columbus' voyage was not whether going west would lead to China, but rather whether small-to-medium-sized ships of the day like the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria could sail across twenty thousand kilometers of open ocean, out of sight of land for more than half a year each way, and sail back again. On a voyage that long, there is no safe harbor to shelter in should a hurricane come by, and most of your supplies would go rancid after months at sea, leading to scurvy and the like from the lack of fruit and vegetables. Ships of later eras could make the voyage only because they were faster than fifteenth-century ships, and because food preservation techniques like airtight canning had replaced pickling and drying (resulting in the vitamins being preserved better). Remember, only two of Magellan's five ships made it back from sailing around the world, and that was thirty years after Columbus' 1492 voyage.
Lt.Death100
Spaceman
I think that heavy fighters are better for people with better aiming while light fighters are for people better at flying.