Torpedo Question

Talking of "easier" or "harder" would WC2 be with or without torpedoe salvo...

Had Broadsword an afterburner - it wouldn't need a salvo mode. But the way it is - the big slow target Ralatha would blow in pieces with her main gun - it needs salvo mode very much (opposed to Sabre, which is fast enough to survive a second torpedo attack approach to an enemy destroyer).

I hated fiercely the slow ugly flying coffin named Broadsword, when it was about the torp missions.
When patrol or something else... it was ugly, too... but is had its chances to survive. But damn slow torpedo attack on Ralatha, watching her aiming you much faster than you get close enough to launch a torpedo...

I just can't get it - why such a ship (I mean the Broad) didn't have afterburners?
Was it SO VERY OLD? Built before afterburners came to existance?
Why wasn't it upgraded then?
And... the even more ugly Crossbow (hated in Russia very much) which was supposed to be the newest bomber - why hadn't it the burners?

I mean - it is clear enough that it was the intent of Origin - make bombers very slow opposed to fighters.

What I would want to hear - the explanation of WCU reasons.

So... any ideas?

P.S.
It would be fair enough to take salvo mode away from Sabresm but still give it to Broads.
P.P.S.
In the film the Broads DID HAVE A SALVO MODE, by the way....
 
I take it you are not very good at evading the enemy flack

It probably made the broadsword and crossbow to heavy to have afterburners

Salvoing is probably much less accurate, thus is not Blair's style.
 
Torpedo Salvo

I wonder if one reason the Broadsword does not have afterburners is the simple fact there isn't any remaining space on craft for the fuel tanks? After all it does have to have space for a pilot, co-pilot, tail gunner, and two side gunners. When you throw in support systems for that many people, equipment to mount and control three separate turrets I imagine there isn't much room left on the frame for missiles, forward firing guns, torpedoes, communication equipment, targeting, jump drives, and etc. So maybe the designers, and the Confederation fleet, decided that as long as it moves faster than its targets, which are primarily capital ships, what does it need afterburners for.
As for salvoing, even in WWII, carrier planes could only drop one torpedo on a run. Only the PBYs and land based aircraft had space for multiple torpedoes. So in keeping with the carrier based theme of the games that's probably one reason right there. Also even today carrier based craft performing anti-submarine operations will only drop one torpedo in the water at a time after having acquired and tracked the target submarine.
Maybe too many torpedoes launched from the same bomber leads to confusion with the targeting and phase shield frequencies? Not the strongest idea out there but it's a possibility.
 
Well, in gameplay terms, the Broadsword and Crossbow consumed about 40% of their fuel to engage their jump drives in the missions where you get to jump to another system. As such, if you were allowed to burn fuel afterburning, then you would find that you no longer had sufficient fuel to jump back to the Concordia.
 
The fuel question, yes... It makes sense. The bomber which can not jump home... It'd be awful.

But the salvo? The film (though I can't say I like it in any way) shows us the salvo attack, doesn't it? Or were there "the other models" of Broadsword?
 
I think the WC2 torpedo runs were fantastic, not only fun but also made the whole carrier/fighter concept work. It was fun in that the tension really built up as you had to sit there and wait for a lock while surrounded by enemy fighters, depending on your escorts and taking flak the whole time.

The phase shield concept IMHO also worked great in explaining how the overall war was being fought, allowing for capital ships to remain important while providing for critically important bomber/fighter battle. Without phase shields if all small ships can open fire and cripple a capital ship, why build huge capital ships that are so venerable? On the other hand if the capital ships with their armor are so great at shooting down fighters and virtually indestructable, why deploy fighters and bombers when you can deploy other capital ships?

The phase shields are awesome in that they provide for near invisible capital ships against most vessels other than each other... except for the dreaded bombers. Given that you can lose your fancy capital ship to a small bomber, you now suddendly want to invest in fancy fighter squadrons to shoot them down. The fighter / bomber battle thus becomes critical while at the same time providing for massive capital ships. I LOVE it!!!

Non-salvoing and non-transmission of frequencies can easily be explained with some technobabble - that the phase shielding is on some pre-built modularing pattern that is allowing the shield to block all energy and missile weapons (perhaps discharging EMP to screw with electronics). The bomber thus has to slow down to lock on one specific point in the shield and record enough of the pattern to be able to "guestimate" that one specific point. Transmitting the data then would be useless because it wouldn't provide for the frequency anywhere else along the ship. Salvoing also would then be useful only if all the torpedoes were fired at the same time, which would make the bomber too large to dodge flak.

Afterburners might have been considered useless than on the Broadsword since the bomber has to be near motionless in order to focus on its specific "target point" at close range. Since it has to slow down in the flak anyway, why put on afterburners. (Future designs might have afterburners not for rushing in to hit the target, but to get out).

There could be some random chances in the frequency too, providing for torpedoes even after launched hitting the shield and doing no damage.

I'd love to see a Wing Commander game of a film of "End Run" to simulate some real bomber runs WC2 style complete with anti-fighter/torpedo missiles, flak, etc.
 
Excellent

Outstanding post Bremmon!
In fact we know that the larger ships do salvo their torpedoes as written in Fleet Action and the charge of the Polwaski's destroyer squadron. The destroyers are able to fire off a spread of five torpedoes in one salvo so it's obviously feasible to do it. But the destroyer obviously has the staying power, and possibly computing power, to make it worthwhile. I'm sure we all know from hard experience the staying power of a Broadsword (or a Shrike or Devastator for that matter) when doing torpedo runs on capital ships.
Personally I like your idea of having to focus on one spot in the shields to break through as the frequency and modulation is different throughout the shield itself. Explains why you can only launch once then have to come back a second time if the first is a dud, detonates prematurely, or doesn't completely destroy the target.
Again, outstanding post and good reasoning.
 
But the salvo? The film (though I can't say I like it in any way) shows us the salvo attack, doesn't it? Or were there "the other models" of Broadsword?

Of course there were. The Broadsword in WC2 was at least the fourth variant, but that's besides the point.

The real reason is clear, and there is no in-universe explanation. So all we can know is that the salvo option simply isn't used in WC2. It can be fun thinking up why, but people should also keep in mind that we're just hypothesizing - or else we'll start hearing about things like insufficient computing power for torpedo locks seep into unrelated discussions where they're mistaken as firm backstory.
 
Outstanding post Bremmon!
In fact we know that the larger ships do salvo their torpedoes as written in Fleet Action and the charge of the Polwaski's destroyer squadron. The destroyers are able to fire off a spread of five torpedoes in one salvo so it's obviously feasible to do it.

Actually it's 12 torpedoes per destroyer not 5.
 
While these complex technical explanations are fun, it could also be something as simple as ammo conservation.
 
P.P.S.
In the film the Broads DID HAVE A SALVO MODE, by the way....

Hell, in the BOOKS, broadswords fire torpedoes by salvo...

I think WC2 (as Bremmon so aptly described) was play-balanced beautifully... missions where I had to torpedo a capital ship were, quite literally, tense enough to make me sweat (particularly my first time through)... taking a flak burst which threw off my aim would be deserving of a newly minted curse... taking an AMG round in the forward shield would drain the blood from my face...and the overlaying sound effect of a lock tone sliding up in pitch until lock made the whole thing come together. That's how it should be...you're taking out a CAPITAL ship...it should be damned hard and perilous.
 
There was indeed something to be said for the excitement brought on by torpedo runs. Everything had to come together just right, and everyone had to pull off their jobs for it to work. I kinda wish the other WC games had brought that feeling into it. It always seemed to me in WCs 3 through P that torpedo runs were more of an individual effort than a group performance. "You guys go dogfight if you want. I'ma kill a few then I think I'll do a torp run. See ya later!"
 
I agree that the no-salvo aspect in WC2 was probably for game balance. It made things more challenging to have to do a second torpedo run to kill a capship.
 
Thanks for the correction RogueBanshee. I just finished reading Fleet Action just about 10 days ago and I guess getting that wrong is what I get for reading 2 other books at the same time or just being too lazy to get up and check the source before posting.

I do agree from a game play perspective having to do the whole single shot and multiple runs against a capital ship is most nail biting experience I've had in a WC game. It's a shame they never worked the bombing element into the later games in a better fashion. Still, its a lot of fun to just shoot hot air and wonder about the why of it sometimes if it was reality.
 
Back
Top