What is with the Nephilim?

Earthworm · Oct 12, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Penguin:
Earthworm: "It seems that what he would do is replace all bombers with heavy fighters, just because fighters are usually better than bombers in the games." Well 1 of my philosophies is always take the best tool. In WC's case I've always felt heavy fighters gave you the best survivability when attacking the enemy. The bombers edge was the sheer firepower, which allowed you to KO capships quickly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But technicly heavy fighters aren't ususally supposed to be able to take on a capship. Tens of bombers can be lost when trying to take out something really heavy, but if you would send fighters they'd be useless, and still dying in large numbers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Earthworm: "The Sabre could cary at most what, 6 torps? That's not much." Eh?

6 torps is a lot in WC2. The Broadsword only carried 4. 6 torps equals 3 phase shielded capships. If some torps get waxed that's still enough to safely put down 2 big capships.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's not a lot if you're planing to replace bombers with heavy fighters. The Sabre in that case sacraficed a lot of missiles which could be used to actually keep it alive.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Earthworm: "WC has always been a game that concentrated more on the gun use." WC is meant to be WWII in space and I don't remember them using Imrecs or FFs in the Battle of Britain

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who said that it's supposed to be WWII in space? It may be similar in some ways, but missiles are necessary for the survival of heavy fighters. The Sabre is designed to take out capships, and other fighters, therefore it needs to have missiles.

Earthworm · Oct 12, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Shane:
I never really noticed the Performace problems with the T-Bomb because I stayed cloaked all the time. I dropped out to fry Thrak with a salvo of missles, and the re-cloaked and un-cloaked to drop the T-Bomb. Were the WC2 era torps smaller than the current ones, or am I just pulling that out of... um, thin air? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's because there is no performance loss in the game. But in the novel, Blair has to unload all of his missiles for the final run on Kilrah and his Excals agility and speed supposedly suffer from its' "cargo".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As for missles, I didn't use them as much in WC1 and WC2, they weren't as effective, I thought.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's true, they weren't really effective. But that's because of the ancient engine, or whatever. Missiles are supposed to be a weapon that's very usefull at all times.

Chernikov · Oct 12, 2000

Penguin: I had the missiles (2 ImRecs, actually). The game just wouldnt let me fire them...

Earthworm: "The Sabre in that case sacraficed a lot of missiles which could be used to actually keep it alive."
Two extra missiles for "self defence" are not a comprimise for a missed chance to kill a capship. Fighting Gothri using a Sabre is perhaps the fastest dogfight in the game, and missiles are often unlockable in this situation. However, this is a moot point, because the Gothri are not only powerful enough to easily survive an ImRec hit, they were fast enough to evade the missile after it was fired. The only difference was that the Gothri would always afterburn out of gun range, lining it up for another head-to-head pass. Not a cool thing for you. Getting good with guns is the best (for me the only) way to survive this mission. A Sabre's gun pool (if you have the skills to hit with all of it in one stream of fire) is more than enough to take a Gothri down in one head to head pass, and a simple afterburner slide should be enough for you to dodge incoming fire. Also... "if you would send fighters they'd be useless, and still dying in large numbers." Fighters seem to work just fine in this one to me. Sure, a Broadsword can take an AMG set head to head, but not two, and it cant dodge. The Sabre is the only choice in this situation.
Oh yeah. You still had six missile slots available when carrying the T-bomb. More than enough.

------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Light a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Earthworm · Oct 12, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chernikov:
Two extra missiles for "self defence" are not a comprimise for a missed chance to kill a capship. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You can't kill the capship if you die on the way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sure, a Broadsword can take an AMG set head to head, but not two, and it cant dodge. The Sabre is the only choice in this situation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wha? That mission would be so much easier in the Broadsword. It can take out Gothris much faster than the Sabre, and it's shields help you get through all the Flak. And the AMG isn't exactly moving fast enough to make the 'sword unable to doge.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Oh yeah. You still had six missile slots available when carrying the T-bomb. More than enough.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In the game you do, because that mission would be unwinable without any missiles, but in the novel Blairs Excal is empty except for the T-bomb.

[This message has been edited by Earthworm (edited October 12, 2000).]

Penguin · Oct 13, 2000

Vondoom: I'd have to agree. The 1st time I heard of WC being meant to be similar to the World Wars was when the movie came out. Otherwise the games don't really give that impression.

Shane: "As for missles, I didn't use them as much in WC1 and WC2, they weren't as effective." True, the WC1/2 era missiles weren't very good, especially compared to later eras. However when used properly they were effective.
Here's my tactics for successful use of WC1/2 missiles:
Dart Dumbfire: The best missile IMHO. Most effective against the bigger stuff - just wait 'till they pull a turn. They're not to quick so as they're turning in front of you let that Dart rip.
Javelin Heat Seeker: I found this to be only effective when the cat tries to do a runner. Fire at about 2-5000 klicks.
Pilum Friend or Foe: This wasn't too accurate, though I remember Thrak had 4 which he always fired at me. Anyways I got best results when used in a straight pass. Fire from about 6-3000 klicks. Don't fire when in a dogfight with no clear targets. The missile will just buzz around and not hit anything.
Spiculum Image Recognition: Same as Pilum.

Earthworm: "But technicly heavy fighters aren't ususally supposed to be able to take on a capship." Where'd you get that from? Heavy fighters can take capships just like bombers, since as you've stated before most weapons can penetrate shields.
"Tens of bombers can be lost when trying to take out something really heavy, but if you would send fighters they'd be useless, and still dying in large numbers." I've yet to observe this in the games. Plus if you're losing tens of bombers and your fighters are useless then you've definitely got replanning to do.
"It's not a lot if you're planing to replace bombers with heavy fighters. The Sabre in that case sacraficed a lot of missiles which could be used to actually keep it alive." Missiles weren't too effective in those days - having a pair of Imrecs certainly wasn't going to enhance your survival chances by any great margin. Besides they'd be plenty of fighters to cover you. A Sabre would have a greater chance at dodging/outrunning anything that comes at you. Meanwhile a bomber is a tad to slow - You've already stated that you don't like the Broadsword or the Dev - with good reason I'm assuming.
"Who said that it's supposed to be WWII in space?" I've heard a lot of talk to that effect, regarding what Chris Roberts had in mind for WC.
"But missiles are necessary for the survival of heavy fighters." In no WC game that I've played can you rely entirely on missiles to save your butt, not even in WC4.
"Missiles are supposed to be a weapon that's very useful at all times." Exactly, but that's often not the case.

Chernikov: "Getting good with guns is the best (for me the only) way to survive this mission." Actually it's the best way to survive WC

Earthworm: "It can take out Gothris much faster than the Sabre." What?

The Broadsword? That thing's too slow to keep up with a Gothri. I mean it's possible - I had to do it 1 time, when Maniac & his Wild Eagles & their flash Morningstars weren't up to the job but IMHO the Sabre's a far safer bet.
"In the game you do, because that mission would be unwinable without any missiles, but in the novel Blairs Excal is empty except for the T-bomb." Well then. Novel Blair must be a lot better then Game Blair

[This message has been edited by Penguin (edited October 13, 2000).]

Earthworm · Oct 13, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Penguin:
Where'd you get that from? Heavy fighters can take capships just like bombers, since as you've stated before most weapons can penetrate shields.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I got that from various examples in the novels, when heavy fighters could do jack against capships. The only exceptions AFAIK was HOTT, and TPOF, where T-bolts were prety effective against medium and lighter capships.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I've yet to observe this in the games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How many times do you have to hear this?

The games are made so you can win them. Of course you won't be loosing so many bombers, you rarly even fly with so many bombers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Plus if you're losing tens of bombers and your fighters are useless then you've definitely got replanning to do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, really? Fighters are there to protect the bombers, not to take on the heavy capships, meanwhile bombers in the old days didn't always have the luxury of staying far away or evading the turret fire. A good example of that in FA. Though the Hakaga is much heavier than what you'd usually go against, it was prety damn effective at taking out Broadswords.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Missiles weren't too effective in those days - having a pair of Imrecs certainly wasn't going to enhance your survival chances by any great margin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They weren't effective in the games, because of various limitations that OSI faced in the early 90's. Like comps that weren't as good as something that came out in 95/96. But as far as the universe is concerned, missiles are always effective.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You've already stated that you don't like the Broadsword or the Dev - with good reason I'm assuming.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never said I don't like the Broadsword. In fact it's one of my favorite ships in WC2. I'd take it any day over the Sabre.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I've heard a lot of talk to that effect, regarding what Chris Roberts had in mind for WC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The WCU may be inspired by WWII, but it's not like CR wanted to recreate it in the future.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In no WC game that I've played can you rely entirely on missiles to save your butt, not even in WC4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, I dare say there are plenty of mission in WC4, which would be unwinable without missiles. And games aren't the most realistic thing out there. If I can take out a Dragon in a Banshee, then there's definetly something wrong here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"Missiles are supposed to be a weapon that's very useful at all times." Exactly, but that's often not the case.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As far as the WC universe is concerned, missiles are often usefull. They saved lives of many of my comrades back in the old days.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What?

The Broadsword? That thing's too slow to keep up with a Gothri.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It doesn't have to keep up with them, because Broadsword three MD's will let me take out a Gothri in one pass. Plus the turrets will provide you with enough protection before you can turn and take out any that managed to get by your fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I mean it's possible - I had to do it 1 time, when Maniac & his Wild Eagles & their flash Morningstars weren't up to the job but IMHO the Sabre's a far safer bet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A faster ship isn't always the better one. Sabres armor sucks, especially the side armor, and it's gun combo could use a little change.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Well then. Novel Blair must be a lot better then Game Blair

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually he isn't. He didn't save Locanda, and one of his first patrol missions, after he came on the Victory was a total failure.

[This message has been edited by Earthworm (edited October 13, 2000).]

Penguin · Oct 13, 2000

Earthworm: "I got that from various examples in the novels." Well that explains it. The only WC novel I've read is Pilgrim Stars.
"How many times do you have to hear this?" A lot apparently

Anyways in the real world a single fighter can take out a warship. How do we know that in 700yrs this still won't hold true?
"Fighters are there to protect the bombers, not to take on the heavy capships, meanwhile bombers in the old days didn't always have the luxury of staying far away or evading the turret fire." Fighters can take on capships, since as you've stated before, they're weapons can penetrate the shields. And it makes sense for them to do so since they're out there anyway. As for the bomber luxury thing, erm, we still don't have that luxury.
"But as far as the universe is concerned, missiles are always effective." Where does it say this? Also missiles are not always effective. Try Vietnam. The AIM 7 Sparrow was usually unreliable, despite being tooted as the replacement for the humble cannon. It was with good reason that it was referred to as the 'Great White Hope.'
"But it's not like CR wanted to recreate it in the future." Oh really? Then why in the movie do the ships look like submarines? Why do they go at each other with torpedoes? Why do they keep silent so that they won't be heard when the Kilrathi are dropping those depth charge/nuke things? We don't see this in the game. And before you go on about engine limitations, the manual itself doesn't state that the capships have torpedoes. And finally why do WC v World War comparison always come up?
"Oh, I dare say there are plenty of mission in WC4, which would be unwinable without missiles." True, though this would depend heavily on how good a pilot you are.
"If I can take out a Dragon in a Banshee, then there's definetly something wrong here." Not necessarily. Sure the Dragon may be really high tech and all but that doesn't make in invulnerable. There are real life examples - F 4 (the most high tech fighter of it's era) falling prey to radarless MiG 17s. Or Mig 25s using 1950s era tech radar to shoot down an F 15 and an F/A 18 on separate occasions. OK sure these victories are few but they do happen. If you're cruising in an F 22 over Iraq sometime in the near future, you can't say I'm in the best fighter around so I can goof off. If somebody with decent aim gets a lock you'll go down as fast as the crappiest MiG.
"Missiles are often usefull." You really like your missiles don't you

"A faster ship isn't always the better one. Sabres armor sucks, especially the side armor, and it's gun combo could use a little change." In the mission I was referring to Maniac, Talon and Crossbones found that out exactly. It was soooo frustrating

Here I was stuck in a slow Broadsword with Maniac and his buddies escorting me in their Morningstars. This lone Gothri jumps us and starts kicking the Wild Eagles' collective butts. However they kept flying away. I couldn't catch up. By the time I finally got on top of that Gothri Maniac and 1 of his buds had bought it - jeeez

Earthworm · Oct 13, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Penguin:
Anyways in the real world a single fighter can take out a warship. How do we know that in 700yrs this still won't hold true?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not in todays world it can't. Maybe during WW II. A capital ship, equiped with shields and armor as storng as we're told, and with so many defenses couldn't possibly be destroyed by one fighter. Also, if you want to read a novel where it was practilcy imposible for fighters to destroy a heavy battle ship, than read Action Stations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Fighters can take on capships, since as you've stated before, they're weapons can penetrate the shields.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But it doesn't mean they'll be effective at that job. You can take an Arrow and fire it's lasers at a Kilrathi cruiser, but it won't blow up anytime soon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
"But as far as the universe is concerned, missiles are always effective." Where does it say this? Also missiles are not always effective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In practilcy all WC novels...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Oh really? Then why in the movie do the ships look like submarines?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because the movie was also inspired by WW II? Because those capships looked far more realistic, at least from the inside than anything we've seen in the WCU? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Why do they go at each other with torpedoes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A lot of Sci Fi universes have torpedos. Two of the most famous ones, being SW and ST.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why do they keep silent so that they won't be heard when the Kilrathi are dropping those depth charge/nuke things?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's a normal human gesture, to be quite when your life is threatend, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. To further proof that they are not trying to be quite so the Kilrathi don't "hear" them comes few minutes later in the movie. We hear the same pinging noise as before (which as the novel explains is a radar) when the Kilrathi command and control ship is passing over the asteroid, but now the crew is more relaxed and are talking.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We don't see this in the game. And before you go on about engine limitations, the manual itself doesn't state that the capships have torpedoes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But novels have stated that for a long time. I don't remember if torpedos were mentioned in FF, but there were definetly mentioned in ER.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And finally why do WC v World War comparison always come up?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know. It seems you or someone else brought it up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>True, though this would depend heavily on how good a pilot you are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Really? I don't know of many people who could complete every mission in WC4, on the nightmare level, and without using any missiles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Not necessarily. Sure the Dragon may be really high tech and all but that doesn't make in invulnerable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But the Dragon is so advanced, piloted by geneticly enhanced pilots, it should be able to kick the crap out of a Banshee in seconds. If the enemy AI was good, they would be utilizing abbilities like the cloak, autoslide, or infinite AB's to their advantage, destroying me in my poor little ship in seconds. Later in the game when I have acess to the Dragon I can pop out of cloak behind a Hellcat and fry him in seconds. You'd think they'd be able to do the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you're cruising in an F 22 over Iraq sometime in the near future, you can't say I'm in the best fighter around so I can goof off. If somebody with decent aim gets a lock you'll go down as fast as the crappiest MiG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But you can't compare those to this situation. The cloak alone gives the Dragon a huge advantage. Yet you only see the AI use it when you get on their tail. But they won't use it to get on yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You really like your missiles don't you

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, I guess I do. I really love the RP's from Prophecy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>However they kept flying away. I couldn't catch up. By the time I finally got on top of that Gothri Maniac and 1 of his buds had bought it - jeeez

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Another proof that the games aren't all that realistic. How could a Gothri take out 2 heavy fighters, with heavier shields and armor IIRC, plus 3 medium guns each?

All I know is in similar missions to the SO1 last mission, I can take out Gothris extremly fast.

Quarto · Oct 13, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Not in todays world it can't. Maybe during WW II.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You think? I daresay that Exocet missiles would be far more effective than WWII torps...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's a normal human gesture, to be quite when your life is threatend, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, the normal human gesture would be to scream your head off

.

Earthworm · Oct 13, 2000

Only if you're a wussy maniac.

Penguin · Oct 14, 2000

Earthworm: "Not in todays world it can't. Maybe during WW II." What? In todays world a fighter loaded with Exocets, Harpoons, Kh 31s or some similar weapon can sink a warship. This happened in the Falklands.
"Because those capships looked far more realistic, at least from the inside than anything we've seen in the WCU?" What the? WC is set 700yrs in the future. Who the hell are you to say what looks real and what doesn't? Do you have a time machine that I don't know about?

Anyways for all we know, if man really does go on to cruise the stars in 700yrs time their spaceships could look like anything.
"A lot of Sci Fi universes have torpedos. Two of the most famous ones, being SW and ST." I meant missiles, not energy based weapons.
"If the enemy AI was good, they would be utilizing abbilities like the cloak, autoslide, or infinite AB's to their advantage, destroying me in my poor little ship in seconds." IIRC in an excerpt of the WC4 novel some Dragons jumped a convoy being escorted by Hellcats. Unhindered by questionable AI they still took a while to destroy the Hellcats.
Finally if the Dragon is so invincible as you're keen to make out then surely they're worth the cost of their construction. Pliers did say: "Small price to pay for unparalled speed and power."
"Cloak alone gives the Dragon a huge advantage." I remember another cloaking fighter - the Strakha. It never caused me any real problems, either in WC2 or 3. Also the advantage isn't as great as you think. The Kilrathi cloaking tech for several years but in the end needed giant fleets, including the near indestructible Hakaga and WC3 dreadnought in order to win or get close to winning.
"How could a Gothri take out 2 heavy fighters, with heavier shields and armor IIRC, plus 3 medium guns each?" Quit badgering me

I don't know. Maybe because it's also a heavy fighter. Maybe because the pilot was better then Maniac and his groupies. Jeez just because you're outnumbered by some shiny new ships doesn't mean you're screwed. The Gothri was also pretty new.

Earthworm · Oct 14, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Penguin:
What the? WC is set 700yrs in the future. Who the hell are you to say what looks real and what doesn't? Do you have a time machine that I don't know about?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It isn't hard to predict that a capital ship would be build as small as possible, but to fit as much personel and equpiment as needed. Therefore it would be cramped in the inside, just like the movie shows, but none of the games did.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I meant missiles, not energy based weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know about SW, but the Star Trek torpedos are not energy based.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>IIRC in an excerpt of the WC4 novel some Dragons jumped a convoy being escorted by Hellcats. Unhindered by questionable AI they still took a while to destroy the Hellcats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you mean Arrows? The intro of the game, except with more transports and Arrows instead of Hellcats? Anyhow, they dealt with most of them soon enough. And they're mission was to destroy everything around, including transports, so they were busy with them for a while too. And finally, none of the the Dragons were destroyed.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Finally if the Dragon is so invincible as you're keen to make out then surely they're worth the cost of their construction. Pliers did say: "Small price to pay for unparalled speed and power."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't belive we're ever shown the price tag for one of those though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I remember another cloaking fighter - the Strakha. It never caused me any real problems, either in WC2 or 3.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For the same reasons as it didn't in WC4.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Also the advantage isn't as great as you think. The Kilrathi cloaking tech for several years but in the end needed giant fleets, including the near indestructible Hakaga and WC3 dreadnought in order to win or get close to winning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We're not talking about fleet actioins, but about a almost invincible fighter, against a weaker fighter. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Quit badgering me

I don't know. Maybe because it's also a heavy fighter. Maybe because the pilot was better then Maniac and his groupies. Jeez just because you're outnumbered by some shiny new ships doesn't mean you're screwed. The Gothri was also pretty new. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Look at the stats of the two, than look at how talented Maniac is supposed to be. Then look at the fact that the pilots under his comand are also supposed to be good. If you had a heavy fighter against two light fighters, the chances would be about similar, but a heavy fighter against two other heavies?

Quarto · Oct 14, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Don't you mean Arrows? The intro of the game, except with more transports and Arrows instead of Hellcats? Anyhow, they dealt with most of them soon enough. And they're mission was to destroy everything around, including transports, so they were busy with them for a while too. And finally, none of the the Dragons were destroyed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, he means Hellcats, since that's what they were in the excerpt that came with WC4, and he did mention that the only WC book he read was Pilgrim Stars.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Pliers did say: "Small price to pay for unparalled speed and power."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Er, guys, that's got nothing to do with the pricetag

. Blair was worried that if he flies the Dragon, BW fighters might fire at him by mistake. And Pliers said...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Look at the stats of the two, than look at how talented Maniac is supposed to be. Then look at the fact that the pilots under his comand are also supposed to be good. If you had a heavy fighter against two light fighters, the chances would be about similar, but a heavy fighter against two other heavies?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What is your point, monsieur? The fact that the encounter took so long doesn't say anything whatsoever about the game - you see, there were AIs on both sides. In other words, the "crappy AI" argument doesn't come into play, because both sides were equal. Thus, the encounter was 100% realistic - we can assume that the results would be identical if there were RIs on both sides instead. Clearly, the Gothri pilot was good.

Penguin · Oct 14, 2000

Earthworm: "It isn't hard to predict that a capital ship would be build as small as possible, but to fit as much personel and equpiment as needed. Therefore it would be cramped in the inside, just like the movie shows, but none of the games did." By that time they would have an incredible amount of miniaturization, eg. the Dragon's powerplant. By that reasoning the ships mightn't be so cramped. Though admittedly it did convey a gritty wartime feel.
"I don't belive we're ever shown the price tag for one of those though." IF the Dragon is as invincible as you state then it wouldn't matter how expensive it was. Suppose the US built a fighter that was so radically advanced it couldn't possibly be destroyed? No matter the price tag, they'd build it, if only to ensure absolutely minimal casualties. They are paying close on a billion US$ for each B-2, so funding isn't so big of a concern.
Confed would be in a similar situation. Confed had to assume that after the Kilrathi there would be another high level threat. Hence the construction of the Vesuvius class and the retaining of a capable space faring navy. As you've mentioned before, if WC were realistic, then capships would be extremely difficult to destroy & many bombers would be destroyed trying. IF the Dragon is so indestructible then that fact alone justifies it's continued production. In the long run you'd save pilots' lives & save money on building & repairing all the Broadswords & Longbows that would be lost on strike missions.
"We're not talking about fleet actioins, but about a almost invincible fighter, against a weaker fighter." But if you had an almost invincible fighter you wouldn't have needed the giant fleet actions in the first place. The Kilrathi reliance on giant fleets, despite having Bloodfangs and Gothris, proves that having advanced, solid fighters does not convey a winning advantage. Confed's Morningstar & Excalibur fighters, both advanced, also failed to tip the war in Confed's favor.
"Look at the stats of the two." I checked the CIC database & stats for the Gothri aren't given. So a cross examination is kind of difficult.
"Than look at how talented Maniac is supposed to be." Maniac's meant to be more lucky then talented. Blair does say to Catscratch: "Maniac leads a charmed life. There's one on every ship but only one."
"But a heavy fighter against two other heavies?" In this particular situation it was 1 heavy versus 3 heavies & a bomber. Also by your reasoning are you stating that a single Excalibur would have no chance against say two Vaktoths?

Quarto: "Thus, the encounter was 100% realistic - we can assume that the results would be identical if there were RIs on both sides instead. Clearly, the Gothri pilot was good." Exactly. I fear that Earthworm is relying too heavily on paper stats to determine who would come out the winner in any given situation. Pilot skill, how the situation develops, how the pilots cope & even dumb luck all play a part. Keep in mind the Gothri was smart enough to lure the dogfight away from me, whether intentionally or not. It ended soon enough when I finally caught up.

[This message has been edited by Penguin (edited October 14, 2000).]

Earthworm · Oct 14, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Penguin:
By that time they would have an incredible amount of miniaturization, eg. the Dragon's powerplant. By that reasoning the ships mightn't be so cramped.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If they could minutarize so much stuff, they would make the ships even smaller.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>IF the Dragon is as invincible as you state then it wouldn't matter how expensive it was. Suppose the US built a fighter that was so radically advanced it couldn't possibly be destroyed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not saying the Dragon can't be destroyed. It shouldn't be destroyed by a light/medium fighter in a one on one fight.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No matter the price tag, they'd build it, if only to ensure absolutely minimal casualties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you could build 20 Hellcats for the price of a single Dragon, you could very well have several strikes at once. Which would be better than one Dragon, even if you lost five or six of the Hellcats.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Confed would be in a similar situation. Confed had to assume that after the Kilrathi there would be another high level threat. Hence the construction of the Vesuvius class and the retaining of a capable space faring navy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh, no. After the war Confed economy was in ruins, and they had to cut corners and save where they can. Tolwyn believed that the there would be a new thread, that's where the Black Lance comes into picture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As you've mentioned before, if WC were realistic, then capships would be extremely difficult to destroy & many bombers would be destroyed trying. IF the Dragon is so indestructible then that fact alone justifies it's continued production.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, not if you can have 15/20 bombers instead of a Dragon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In the long run you'd save pilots' lives & save money on building & repairing all the Broadswords & Longbows that would be lost on strike missions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh, just because the Dragon is indestructibale against a weaker fighter doesn't mean it could take on a capship better than bombers can. Especially since it only caries two torps.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But if you had an almost invincible fighter you wouldn't have needed the giant fleet actions in the first place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What makes you draw that conclusion?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Kilrathi reliance on giant fleets, despite having Bloodfangs and Gothris,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bloodfangs and Gothris? The Bloodfang is Thraks personal fighter, and there's nothing special about the Gothri.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> proves that having advanced, solid fighters does not convey a winning advantage. Confed's Morningstar & Excalibur fighters, both advanced, also failed to tip the war in Confed's favor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you're proving my point. That the Dragon despite being as effective as it is, could not replace other ships and make a diference in a war. Plus, the Excal is a bad example since it only entered production at the end of the war, and the first ten operational Excals were the ones that Victory got from the Eagel. Plus, I'd say that with the destruction of Kilrah the Excalibur did tip the war in Confed's favor.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Maniac's meant to be more lucky then talented. Blair does say to Catscratch: "Maniac leads a charmed life. There's one on every ship but only one."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What you said makes no sense. Of course Maniac is talented and extremly experienced. He's almost as good as Blair. A little conversation that Blair is having with Catscratch doesn't mean anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In this particular situation it was 1 heavy versus 3 heavies & a bomber.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Also by your reasoning are you stating that a single Excalibur would have no chance against say two Vaktoths?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Depends. If the Excal would have cloak it would have an advantage. It also has heavier guns, is much faster and agile, and has beter shields IIRC. But if the pilots were equally skilled the Vaktohs would come out on top.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Exactly. I fear that Earthworm is relying too heavily on paper stats to determine who would come out the winner in any given situation. Pilot skill, how the situation develops, how the pilots cope & even dumb luck all play a part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Earthworm isn't relying on paper stats. Yes, all those things play a part. So you're saying that every Kilrathi or Nephilim pilot we encounter is either a poor flyer, that's extremly unlucky?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Keep in mind the Gothri was smart enough to lure the dogfight away from me, whether intentionally or not. It ended soon enough when I finally caught up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A heavy fighter that would go against three heavy fighters would be dead meat 90% of the time, even if he managed to kill one of the fighters.

Chernikov · Oct 15, 2000

Earthworm: you are relying too heavily on paper stats, saying "this shouldnt be happening because this fighter took out something with heavier shields and better guns". Stats mean very little, and "better" is a purely relative term. Is better the ship that is smaller, faster, weaker guns, but can stay on the tail of something large enough to empty it's entire gun pool? Or is it a fighter that can salvo once and take down half the shields of the other ship? We're talking about two nearly equal types of fighters here (Sabre and Gothri), and winning or losing depends mostly on skill and aim. This is where flying a Sabre comes in. The stats and loadout are similar to a Sabre, making dodge/shoot the best tactic. Sure, once you get past the fighters a Broadsword is better against the capships. However, like you said, surviving to deliver your weapons is more important than shooting them. And surviving means killing quickly. And the best way to kill quickly *drum roll* is to take them down WITH GUNS *cymbal crash* before they or you can get a missile lock. It is possible for a Gothri and a Sabre to do that to each other easily, and if you can get good enough you can pirouette a couple of times and have the second target's shields down before the first one has flared out. And before you would have locked on to the first one. That section of WC2, as well as most of WC4, is like real life: both you and the other guy are able to take the other down in short order, often with one burst, so the deciding factor is who shoots fastest and best. Not who has the extra 10 cm of shields.

As far as the Gothri/Morningstar encounter, this is probably random. When I played through, I had trouble keeping up.

------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Light a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

KillerWave · Oct 15, 2000

I agree with Chernikov, i read in this thread some time ago, a post sayng that a banshee would never be able to take down a dragon (dont remmember who said it and im too lazy to look for it

, but it does depend a lot in the pilot, like Tolwyn sayd, "its the man isnt it?", of course a dragon would have a great superiority over a banshee, but the pilot counts a lot, if there is just some rookie in the dragon and, lets say, Blair in the Banshee, so yes, the Dragon could be destroyed, but it could be a very hard fight.
What i mean is that "ships don fly themselves", its how well a pilot uses it that makes difference.

Earthworm · Oct 15, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chernikov:
Earthworm: you are relying too heavily on paper stats,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No I'm not. I'm relying more on the number of fighters that go against each other. Three Morningstars would have no trouble dealing with a single Gothri. It's that simple.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"this shouldnt be happening because this fighter took out something with heavier shields and better guns".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I'm not saying anything remotly similar to that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Stats mean very little, and "better" is a purely relative term.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stats mean little? Even if you are a superior pilot, who do you think would have a better chance of survival, you in an Epee, or me in a Morningstar? Assuming that I actually got through the Naval academy, and I know how to fly and fight of course. It's only when stats are as close as Gothris and Morningstars, do they become much less important, but in this little situation that we have here, the strenght in numbers is all to evident.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We're talking about two nearly equal types of fighters here (Sabre and Gothri), and winning or losing depends mostly on skill and aim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First, it's a Morningstar not a Sabre.

Second, if it was one on one, than yes, the chances would be pretty equal. But a single Gothri would get it's rear end fried by the two Morningstars while trying to keep on the third one's tail.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sure, once you get past the fighters a Broadsword is better against the capships. However, like you said, surviving to deliver your weapons is more important than shooting them. And surviving means killing quickly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No surviving means just that. Staying alive. It may take me more time to take out a few Gothris in a Broadword (though it's usually less) but I have the confidence that my shields won't get knocked down, and than the armor get chewed up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And the best way to kill quickly *drum roll* is to take them down WITH GUNS *cymbal crash* before they or you can get a missile lock.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I completly agree. Broadwords MD's make quick work of the Gothris in the first pass.

Earthworm · Oct 15, 2000

KillerWave:
Even a rookie pilot knows how to cloak. Than pop out behind the Banshee and fire a missile before it has time to react.

The problem with weapons technology is that even the weakest and wussiest guy can take out a strong and brave guy if he has a technological advantage. Just like a little twerp that wouldn't stand a chance against me if we were to fight, can jump out and shoot me when I'm on my way to school, a Dragon with the most inexperienced pilot can get out of cloak directly behind you and fire a salvo of missiles that can lock on while he's still cloaked.

Penguin · Oct 15, 2000

Earthworm: "If they could minutarize so much stuff, they would make the ships even smaller." There's comes a point when a ship can only be so small.
"I'm not saying the Dragon can't be destroyed. It shouldn't be destroyed by a light/medium fighter in a one on one fight." Why not? Again pilot skill is a crucial determinant, not who's got the flashiest gear.
"Uh, no. After the war Confed economy was in ruins, and they had to cut corners and save where they can." As I mentioned prior, if they were cutting corners why did they build the Vesuvius? Big carriers like the Vesuvius are expensive and they were building at least 2. Then there's the Bearcat production line. Why build a new class of fighter when you've already got the Excalibur (4yrs old at this time?) & there's no obvious enemy?
"Again, not if you can have 15/20 bombers instead of a Dragon." What good is having so many bombers if most of them get wasted as you've stated before? If the Dragon, with all it's perks, is so unbelievably great then it would be able to do a job that might require all those bombers with far less numbers.
"Especially since it only caries two torps." In the era that the Dragon was designed, the Flashpack was also a relevant weapon. A single 1 took out the Ella Superbase or the Vesuvius herself. And with her wonderful cloak, don't tell me a single Dragon couldn't pull this off.

As for the giant fleets. If you had a fighter as great as the Dragon you wouldn't need to build freaking 32km long 'noughts. Why? Because such a fighter would rip apart the opposition's fighters. This would put you in the superior position. Suppose Confed's fighters' got their collective asses kicked by some Kilrathi super fighter? That would give the Kilrathi the advantage - even if Confed still had it's capship fleet intact.
As for proving your point, what? You have been stating that the Dragon, with all it's perks, is a superior fighter capable of annihilating all opposition with ease. With that comes the implication that it could carry out the roles of any fighter/bomber currently existing, but do it better. Surely with it's cloak, unlimited AB & flashpacks it would be far better at nailing capships, then the 'sword, Bow, Avenger, Vindicator, et al. We all saw how a small force of Strakha's sank the Tiger's Claw with impunity.
What I'm saying is that a fighter, no matter how advanced, couldn't tip the scales in favor of any given side.
Finally it wasn't an Excal but a T-Bomb.
"Depends. If the Excal would have cloak it would have an advantage. It also has heavier guns, is much faster and agile, and has beter shields IIRC. But if the pilots were equally skilled the Vaktohs would come out on top." Now you're proving my point. You're suggesting that with skilled pilots, a statistically inferior fighter could cope with a statistically superior fighter. This statement should hold true when it comes to a Dragon vs whatever.
"Earthworm isn't relying on paper stats." Yes you are. Your continued insistence in pointing out the Dragon's advantages coupled with your insistence that nothing can topple the Dragon because of those advantages is reliance on paper stats.
"A heavy fighter that would go against three heavy fighters would be dead meat 90% of the time, even if he managed to kill one of the fighters." Perhaps but it can be done. Remember pilot skill.

Finally the 3 Morningstars vs 1 Gothri battle. You've mentioned before that missiles are effective, throughout the WCU. In this case the Gothri could've fired off a number of missiles, distracting the Morningstars. And I think we've all seen how quickly a fighter can take down another fighter if the aims good. The odds could get evened very quickly.
"Who do you think would have a better chance of survival, you in an Epee, or me in a Morningstar?" Here we go again - SKILL. Suppose you, an experienced WC gamer in an Epee, goes against someone new to the game, who is flying a Morningstar. Wouldn't you say, that despite any perceived inferiority on the Epee's part, you'd still have a good chance of victory.
"Even a rookie pilot knows how to cloak than pop out behind the Banshee and fire a missile before it has time to react." So, a Banshee can do the same thing. Dragon pops out of claok, spilling missiles. Banshee dodges, dropping decoys & releasing it's own missiles, say FFs. Radar picks up the Dragon the moment it comes out of cloak so the Banshee pilot would have a good chance. Or what if the Banshee drops mines like the 1 Seether had? Oh yeah. Someone once said that you could kill Seether if you dropped lots of decoys really quickly once the fighter started. This could be another way to discourage a Dragon from launching this sort of attack. Besides when someone cloaks it's likely that they'll attack from the rear.

[This message has been edited by Penguin (edited October 15, 2000).]

What is with the Nephilim?

Spaceman

Spaceman

Spaceman

Spaceman

Spaceman

Spaceman

Spaceman

Spaceman

Unknown Enemy

Spaceman

Spaceman

Spaceman

Unknown Enemy

Spaceman

Spaceman

Spaceman

Spaceman

Spaceman

Spaceman

Spaceman