Wc1 Bloodfang?

F

Fatcat

Swabbie
Banned
I noticed that the Kilrathi had a Bloodfang prototype as early as Wc1. Does anyone have the stats for it? (Weapons, armor/shields, etc.)
 

Attachments

  • wc1bloodfang.jpg
    wc1bloodfang.jpg
    4.6 KB · Views: 246
Almost certainly not, but we don't know what the WC1 stats are. The "prototype" bit is also a bit unnecessary. Although there are only ever very few Bloodfangs, the ones we see aren't in testing like the Rapier/Morningstar/Crossbow prototypes.
 
Gathering from the fact that the Particle Cannons were used as a replacement for the Neutron Gun, i'll wager it has the same missile armament, but with 4 Neutron Guns instead.
 
Fatcat said:
Gathering from the fact that the Particle Cannons were used as a replacement for the Neutron Gun, i'll wager it has the same missile armament, but with 4 Neutron Guns instead.
Click to expand...

That's one possibility, but Particle Cannons have much longer range than Neutron Guns. Giving a fighter just four Neutrons seriously cripples its medium to long range fighting ability. Two Mass Drivers and two Neutrons is a much more balanced and almost as potent combination, and it'd also be more similar to the WC3 variant. We don't know what it actually had.
 
Fatcat said:
Gathering from the fact that the Particle Cannons were used as a replacement for the Neutron Gun, i'll wager it has the same missile armament, but with 4 Neutron Guns instead.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, remember the Kilrathi did not replace their neutron guns with particles - for example, the Sartha carry only neutron guns.
 
Also, Particle Cannons are one of those not-so-new-in-WC2-afterall technologies -- CPO McEdence mentions that the Broadswords on WCA have "rear facing Particle Cannons" (2654).
 
Although I really don't want to say it...why don't they have the particle guns on the newer ships then? Seems to me when they prototyped the Rapiers then they would have put particle cannons on them instead of the neutron guns...Why would a broadsword rate getting particle turret guns but a brand new fighter has to make do with the older gun? I see the reference so it must be so but it doesn't jive too well.
 
Well, there's certainly nothing definitive on the issue -- maybe the Particle Cannons of that era were a turret-specific weapon, much like the unflatteringly named 'Turret Guns' in WC2.
 
Maj.Striker said:
Although I really don't want to say it...why don't they have the particle guns on the newer ships then? Seems to me when they prototyped the Rapiers then they would have put particle cannons on them instead of the neutron guns...Why would a broadsword rate getting particle turret guns but a brand new fighter has to make do with the older gun? I see the reference so it must be so but it doesn't jive too well.
Click to expand...

Well, Broadswords were pretty extravagant bombing monsters several times the size of average fighters. It's simple to imagine a scenario where the first versions of the particle cannons used up so much power that they could only be fed by the giant generators on the Broadsword. I personally didn't like the particles all that much. It could have been my imagination, but they always seemed "fluffy." It's hard to describe, but it seemed like the pulses moved slowly and had a weaker effect (compared to a Neutron) when they hit. With the Rapier already having the Lasers for long range stuff, it might've made more sense to give the first generation Rapier IIs the tried and true Neutrons and leave the experimental/power-hungry/prototype particle cannons on a Broadsword turret testbed.
 
Maj.Striker said:
Although I really don't want to say it...why don't they have the particle guns on the newer ships then? Seems to me when they prototyped the Rapiers then they would have put particle cannons on them instead of the neutron guns...Why would a broadsword rate getting particle turret guns but a brand new fighter has to make do with the older gun? I see the reference so it must be so but it doesn't jive too well.
Click to expand...

I'd probably go with the concept that particle guns are either too big (in terms of support equipment) or too energy intensive to fit onto a fighter which is already probably pushing its design envelopes... or they're trying to put in systems which they KNOW will work on a relatively untested frame. They've probably got enough to deal with, seeing how the engines and shield systems are pretty hot, and probably a bit buggy to boot. Hunter did make a comment about how much more maintenance the Rapiers seemed to take versus the older craft in Freedom Flight.

Also, remember that Particle Cannons were first developed 'three years into the war' according to the KS and VS manuals, which puts Confed's first prototype guns (based on technology salvaged from the Kilrathi) into the prototype stage by 2637. I can see them having taken over 20 years to have minaturized enough to put onto a fighter platform versus a large bomber. Even if the WC2 manual calls them a 'recent innovation', cloaking is also described as a 'recent' innovation even if it was present in various forms prior to WC2, and the Kilrathi had yards which were prototyping Strakhas by 2655. :D

ChrisReid said:
Well, Broadswords were pretty extravagant bombing monsters several times the size of average fighters. It's simple to imagine a scenario where the first versions of the particle cannons used up so much power that they could only be fed by the giant generators on the Broadsword. I personally didn't like the particles all that much. It could have been my imagination, but they always seemed "fluffy." It's hard to describe, but it seemed like the pulses moved slowly and had a weaker effect (compared to a Neutron) when they hit. With the Rapier already having the Lasers for long range stuff, it might've made more sense to give the first generation Rapier IIs the tried and true Neutrons and leave the experimental/power-hungry/prototype particle cannons on a Broadsword turret testbed.
Click to expand...

From what I recall of WC2, the particles WERE a tad slower than the lasers, or so they'd seemed when used, which meant you had to 'lead' a bit more to nail a target. I do remember that they had an awful refire rate in WC3 which, combined with a power usage double that of a pair of lasers, made them rather unattractive weapons in WC3, at least compared to the ion cannons or tachyons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top