Best series of Confed fighters

[Max Gene]

I personally preferred the Tbolt, like others here, but the Hellcat was a tie with the Arrow for me, for some reason. I guess I usually didn't have much use for maxing out the throttle in an arrow, and afterburners in WC3 were ruined by the way mouse controls are set up- I could turn, OR I could afterburn.

Of course, the Arrow might take precedence after I play WC3 with my joystick's functions all set up for it... I really must play through WC3 again.

 

[Farbourne]

I agree that the Hellcat wasn't that useful if you knew what you were up against...the Arrow was superior for interception or dogfighting with lots of light fighters, and the T-bolt was what you wanted to be in if you were up against capships, especially cruisers, or lots of Corvettes.

But think back to the first time you played WC3, with no game guides, and you didn't know WHAT to expect in a mission. That is the role the Hellcat played. Yes, if you KNEW you'd be facing swarms of Darkets and Dralthis and no capships, you'd take an Arrow every time, and if you knew you were up against six corvettes and then a cruiser, you'd take a Thunderbolt. But if you don't know...you'd better take a 'Cat. You're still able to dogfight with the quick ones, and yet have more shields, armor, and gun firepower to deal with those 'vettes.

Plus, there was one other reason to fly the Hellcat...the Vaktoth. For some reason, if I was up against Vaktoths, I would want to be in a Hellcat over any other WC3 fighter (except for the Excalibur, of course). They were too damn fast and hard to hit, and too tough to destroy, even if they weren't that maneuverable, and they had a rear gun. The Arrow could keep up with them and stay on their tail, but their rear gun was actually dangerous to an Arrow, while their armor was so tough that shooting them down with the lightweight guns of an Arrow took a long time. On the other hand, the Vaktoth was faster than the Thunderbolt, so even with the Tunderbolt's increased firepower, I had a hard time dealing with Vaktoths...they would lay on their burners, I would lay on mine, and they would slowly pull away from me.

However, the Hellcat was just right. It could outmaneuver and keep up with the Vaktoths, but wasn't shredded by their reargun like an Arrow and had powerful enough guns to actually dent their armor.

 

[frostytheplebe]

You should have been around 15 years ago then. The Hellcat had quite the devote following and I'm sure still does.

Probably because of the Neutron/Particle combo... even back then it was unimpressive. Those guns were not as awesome as they were in WC2.

 

[Quarto]

I disagree somewhat. While yes, I see there are design reasons to put in a fighter or two that are not top notch but I prefer it when each fighter given the possibility to fly can hold its own ground well because it has strong points.

Of course the Scimitar is worse in almost every aspect to the Raptor or Rapier but it still has good guns, a good missile loadout, enough manoeuvrability and decent protection.

The Tigershark had ok guns, even good when using the charging MD correctly and the RP made it fun too. It still had good speed and agility.

Now, the Hellcat in WC3 had no good gun loadout, no good missile loadout, no good protection and no good agillity.

Well, see, that's the interesting thing - you like the Scimitar, while many others thought it was absolutely useless. Similarly, there's people who like the Hellcat, while others (like us ) think it was absolutely useless. It may be that there are less Hellcat admirers (may be) than Scimitar admirers, but this is mainly the game's fault - being able to choose any ship you wanted and any missiles you wanted meant that nobody ever had any reason to warm up to the Hellcat. If you didn't like it during the first mission, you simply never flew it again - and naturally, you then complain about how useless it was .

For the record, though I ignored the Hellcat all the way to the end of the game, I disagree that it was useless in every way. Its *default* missile loadout was far superior to the Arrow's. Sure, the Arrow had more missiles... but half of them were weakling FFs, and the other half were DFs, useful mainly against corvettes and heavies. But see, that's the tragedy of WC3 - I never had any reason to complain about the Arrow's default loadout, because I always changed it to what the Hellcat had (all IRs).

But anyway, that's besides the point. Now, yes, you're right - every fighter needs some redeeming quality, but you need to bear in mind two things. Firstly, not everyone will see that redeeming quality. I love the Scimitar (mainly for its cockpit), but most people hate it because really, it's not much of a fighter, and watching Bhurak get away is just so frustrating. You hate the Hellcat, but again - some people will tell you it's got all sorts of good qualities. That's good game design - any time you've got a ship that half the people will hate while the other half will love, you're doing your job right. The second thing you need to bear in mind, is that the redeeming quality does not need to be in the ship itself. It can be in the context. Imagine, if you had a Kilrathi fighter mission in WC2 - using a Sartha or Drakhri. Well, the Dralthi in WC1 at least was a good ship in some ways, but those two are useless, they're inferior to just about everything Confed has. But the excitement of an infiltration mission would make you appreciate them - you wouldn't like flying them, but you'd love the fact that there is a mission where you fly them.

 

[frostytheplebe]

I love the Scimitar (mainly for its cockpit), but most people hate it because really, it's not much of a fighter, and watching Bhurak get away is just so frustrating. .

I love the scim for the same reason. The cockpit had a very cozy feeling to it... probably because it reminded me of the interior of my mother's '89 volvo station wagon. It had the same red interior, and the design sort of reminded me of it.

 

[Mekt-Hakkikt]

Well, see, that's the interesting thing - you like the Scimitar, while many others thought it was absolutely useless. Similarly, there's people who like the Hellcat, while others (like us ) think it was absolutely useless. It may be that there are less Hellcat admirers (may be) than Scimitar admirers, but this is mainly the game's fault - being able to choose any ship you wanted and any missiles you wanted meant that nobody ever had any reason to warm up to the Hellcat. If you didn't like it during the first mission, you simply never flew it again - and naturally, you then complain about how useless it was .

For the record, though I ignored the Hellcat all the way to the end of the game, I disagree that it was useless in every way. Its *default* missile loadout was far superior to the Arrow's. Sure, the Arrow had more missiles... but half of them were weakling FFs, and the other half were DFs, useful mainly against corvettes and heavies. But see, that's the tragedy of WC3 - I never had any reason to complain about the Arrow's default loadout, because I always changed it to what the Hellcat had (all IRs).

But anyway, that's besides the point. Now, yes, you're right - every fighter needs some redeeming quality, but you need to bear in mind two things. Firstly, not everyone will see that redeeming quality. I love the Scimitar (mainly for its cockpit), but most people hate it because really, it's not much of a fighter, and watching Bhurak get away is just so frustrating. You hate the Hellcat, but again - some people will tell you it's got all sorts of good qualities. That's good game design - any time you've got a ship that half the people will hate while the other half will love, you're doing your job right. The second thing you need to bear in mind, is that the redeeming quality does not need to be in the ship itself. It can be in the context. Imagine, if you had a Kilrathi fighter mission in WC2 - using a Sartha or Drakhri. Well, the Dralthi in WC1 at least was a good ship in some ways, but those two are useless, they're inferior to just about everything Confed has. But the excitement of an infiltration mission would make you appreciate them - you wouldn't like flying them, but you'd love the fact that there is a mission where you fly them.

Then maybe I misunderstood you the first time because I thought you said, in order to have a well designed game, you need to have ships that are crap so that people can appreciate the other non-crap or less-crap fighters. That's where I would have disagreed.

That ships have different designs, strengths or whatever and thus different player types appreciate different fighter designs is absolutely ok, even great. Some people prefer the Rapier to the Raptor in WC 1 and that's fine.

 

[Quarto]

Then maybe I misunderstood you the first time because I thought you said, in order to have a well designed game, you need to have ships that are crap so that people can appreciate the other non-crap or less-crap fighters. That's where I would have disagreed.

Well, that is kind of what I said, but not quite . It's not that some ships are made intentionally terrible, but rather the other ships are intentially designed to be better. The contrast works both ways - the Rapier would not feel like such a great ship if there was no Scimitar to compare it to, but the Scimitar also would not feel like a bad ship if there was no Rapier to compare it to. Without the Rapier, the Scimitar is a reasonably good fighter.

 

[Mekt-Hakkikt]

Then I think I still disagree somewhat. I can appreciate the Scimitar even though the Rapier is there.

So, I answered the question "Which WC game has the best series of fighters" correctly IMO because I had fun with every fighter and I would not say WC3 had the best series of fighters just because it has the Hellcat in it which makes the other fighter seem better.

Or, more appropriately since I can choose not to take the Hellcat: WC2 has not the better series of fighters for me, just because it has the Broadsword and Epee. These fighters I didn't like to fly did not make me appreciate the Rapier II more.

 

[MjavTheGray]

If we're talking of fighters that 'have character' - we're talking of Vega campaign. Low detail graphics, low resolution, yes... The later games had no such disadvantage, but all the WC1 ships sure did have their characters. They DID look alive (opposed to high detail flying toys of WC2 and boring appearance of WC3 ships, not talking of WC4 having no cockpits at all), they were so real... It is only Prophecy and WCSO (and of cource Unknown Enemy) that has that very same feeling of "real ships".

IMHO.

 

[frostytheplebe]

If we're talking of fighters that 'have character' - we're talking of Vega campaign. Low detail graphics, low resolution, yes... The later games had no such disadvantage, but all the WC1 ships sure did have their characters. They DID look alive (opposed to high detail flying toys of WC2 and boring appearance of WC3 ships, not talking of WC4 having no cockpits at all), they were so real... It is only Prophecy and WCSO (and of cource Unknown Enemy) that has that very same feeling of "real ships".

IMHO.

Yeah I know... the graphics on the original rapier still have me guessing just a little as to what it really looks like in some areas.