Bearcat

Originally posted by Mekt-Hakkikt


I wouldn't call the Bearcat balanced, it was a super-fighter like the Excalibur and Dragon (though the Dragon is IMO the most powerful of them all). And I don't think that the light Tachyon guns were at a disadvantage in WC4 against small nimble targets. Only the gun placing made the Bearcat so unattractive (for me at least).
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call the Bearcat a super-fighter as it doesn't feature many of the bell and whistles the Excalibur and Dragon had (such as cloaking or jump drives or ubercannons like the Fission guns)
I would say it pure dogfighter, which it excelled at with high speeds, heavier armour, strong shields and powerful weapons.
 
The Bearcat has unparalleled speed in WC4, very high maneuverability, high damage potential and well-above average protection. In fact, stats-wise IMHO the Bearcat not only rivals the Excalibur as super-fighter but even surpasses it.
The cloak and jumo capability wasn't what made the Excalibur super (Strakhas can cloak too and they are far from being a super-fighter, even far from being a good fighter),it was a the fact that it had was fast, nimble, very heavily armed and well-protected when compared to any other fighter, thus having all the advantages from the other fighter classes but not their drawbacks.
The Dragon is absolutely a super-fighter in any respect.
 
I wouldn't classify the Bearcat as super-fighter either. It definitly is a heavy fighter though. I find it to be pretty much the equivilent of the Excalibur. Both ships have advantages over the other in certain respects but both fighters are very lethal.
 
So the Excalibur isn't a superfighter in your opinion (in the time of WC3/WC4) ? A fighter combining all advantages of the previous fighters with no of their drawbacks and having some extra goodies even is truely my definition of a super-fighter.
I am curious then: What is a super-fighter in your eyes?
 
A "super-fighter" is just a phrase used to describe a craft that far outmatches anything currently in service. At least most of them anyway. It's cutting edge technology at its finest. When the Excalibur was unveiled there was nothing in space that could touch it. Everything about the Excalibur made it superior. Even during WC4 you still got a sense of panic when an Excalibur was in the area. Remember the Morningstar? It was a "super-fighter" during its initial service. But if we were to create and build a fighter with the exact same specs and everything in an era where the Vampire and Wasp reign supreme... do you think we could still call it a superfighter? Nah, not at all. When someone says "super-fighter" they are referring to the period in time where a brand new fighter, designed with the best possible specs at the time, is completely superior to almost everything if not then everything. The Bloodfang was the Kilrathi's supposed "super-fighter" but it could have never stood up to an Excalibur. It is really an opinion. All in the mind. The title of "Super-Fighter" is just a grace period until something even better comes. In all honesty... I don't think that the Bearcat or the Dragon could be called Super-fighters OVER the Excalibur.
 
On the contrary, I would have to say that the Excalibur was very far from being a super-fighter. The Excal was little more than WC3's equivalent of the WC1 Rapier, with the exact same benefits (speed and agility) and the same drawbacks (armour... what armour?). The fact that it did the aiming for you was great, and made it a great Darket-killer, but it wasn't a super-fighter... it could be blown out of space by any Kilrathi fighter, provided the pilot had a little skill. The cloak was a neat gadget, but not a useful one, since unlike Kilrathi cloaks, it offered a one-use, long-term cloak rather than a multi-use short-term one.
 
Originally posted by Colonel Hayden
The Bloodfang was the Kilrathi's supposed "super-fighter" but it could have never stood up to an Excalibur.
Click to expand...

In WC3 the Bloodfang and Excalibur had exactly the same stats. other than shape there was nothing different about it.
 
They're not equal:

Excalibur (WC3) versus Bloodfang (WC3)
Max. Speed: Bloodfang (+60 kps)
Max. Afterburner: Bloodfang (+100 kps)
Max. Yaw: Equal
Max. Pitch: Bloodfang (+15 dps)
Max. Roll: Bloodfang (+20 dps)
Guns: Excalibur (4 Tachyon & 2 Reapers vs. 2 Tachyon & 2 Plasma)
Missiles: Excalibur (+3 missiles)
Decoys: Excalibur (+18)
Front Shield: Equal
Rear Shield: Bloodfang (+150 cm)
Front Armor: Excalibur (+10 cm)
Rear Armor: Excalibur (+10 cm)
Side Armor: Excalibur (+10 cm)
 
I would, incidentally, consider the Bloodfang a 'super fighter' simply because it is classed as a "Super Heavy Fighter" :)

(Gak, I meant *Sorthak*. The Sorthak is a "super heavy fighter", the Bloodfang is an "ultra heavy fighter")
 
Colonel Hayden: That's what I say too or at least wanted to say. Nevertheless, in my eyes the Bearcat is a super-fighter in WC4, even to a higher degree then the Exalibur when compared to her WC3 competitors.

Quarto: I disagree. The Rapier II in WC1 was the most maneuverable and fastest fighter in Confed's fleet. Its protection was noticeably inferior to that of the Raptor as was its firepower.
The Excalibur on the other hand is only marginally slower and less maneuverable than the Arrow, has the highest firepower of all fighters and equal protection to the TBolt.
In my eyes the Excalibur is a super-fighter (for WC3 time) whereas the Rapier II in WC1 isn't, it's only a (very) good fighter.
Maybe to illustrate that a bit: If given the choice between a Rapier and a Raptor in WC1, I would choose the Raptor and I think enough other people too. In WC3 this question isn't raised: if you have the Excalibur at your disposal, there's no need and no reason to take another ship (except maybe the Longbow for some bomber freaks).
 
Originally posted by Mekt-Hakkikt
So the Excalibur isn't a superfighter in your opinion (in the time of WC3/WC4) ? A fighter combining all advantages of the previous fighters with no of their drawbacks and having some extra goodies even is truely my definition of a super-fighter.
I am curious then: What is a super-fighter in your eyes?
Click to expand...

One that can single-handedly destroy a Kilrathi dreadnought in under a minute.:D
 
Mekt, you're probably right in your description of the Excal, since I haven't played WC3 for a long time. However, I disagree about your conclusion. The Excalibur is not good enough to make all others useless. As a light fighter, the Arrow remains better because of its speed. As a torpedo bomber... well, both the Longbow and the Thunderbolt were superior simply because they actually carried torpedoes. This does, of course, leave two big roles in which the Excalibur is a clear winner - pure dogfighting, and planetary strikes (especially with a Temblor ;)). Unfortunately, in these particular spheres the only competition had been the Hellcat, so the Excalibur's superiority proves little :p.
 
Quarto: In the context of WC3 the Excalibur is a superfighter in the sense that it stands head and shoulders over its Confed and Kilrathi equivalents. Before you accuse me of subjectivity, you've got to admit the game got easier once the Excalibur was made available.
Anyways how does the Arrow having a few klicks of extra speed make it a better interceptor than the Excalibur? Is a Vampire a better interceptor than the Wasp simply because its faster? Also in the WC3 context torpedoes are not required. Therefore the Excalibur's autoslide capability and tachyon/reaper combine to make it as effective at anti-capship missions as a Longbow or Thud. Sure having a torp might allow you to kill the capship faster, but the Excal's inherent abilities make it much more likely that it'll survive long enough to have a go at the capship. An example might be the last mission of WC2:SO1. Imagine taking on all those Gothris and Fralthras, with you, Bear, Hobbes and Buell flying in Broadswords, not Sabres. I'm don't know about your piloting skills, but I swear I would never make it past the Gothris.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
They're not equal:

Excalibur (WC3) versus Bloodfang (WC3)
Max. Speed: Bloodfang (+60 kps)
Max. Afterburner: Bloodfang (+100 kps)
Max. Yaw: Equal
Max. Pitch: Bloodfang (+15 dps)
Max. Roll: Bloodfang (+20 dps)
Guns: Excalibur (4 Tachyon & 2 Reapers vs. 2 Tachyon & 2 Plasma)
Missiles: Excalibur (+3 missiles)
Decoys: Excalibur (+18)
Front Shield: Equal
Rear Shield: Bloodfang (+150 cm)
Front Armor: Excalibur (+10 cm)
Rear Armor: Excalibur (+10 cm)
Side Armor: Excalibur (+10 cm)
Click to expand...

Hmm. The bloodfang had better rear shields than an Excal. Personally, I'd have though the Kilrathi would have frowned on that as running away shows less honour. I guess honour doesn't count if you're Thrak:)
 
Penguin: I think that the Excalibur does have a lot going for it as an interceptor. It's got better armour, better weaponry, better AB velocity, and so on. But, as a light fighter, I think it would be foolish to replace the Arrow with Excals (and yes, I think it's pure folly to use light fighters as interceptors). Those extra 20 klicks mean that an Arrow could tail an Excalibur back to its carrier, but an Excalibur couldn't tail an Arrow back to the enemy carrier. The Arrow is thus far superior in the light fighter's most standard job, patrols. As is the Darket, incidentally. And both of them are more manoeuvrable, meaning that if they weren't being flown by AI, the Excal pilot would face a very serious challenge killing them.

Oh, and the Vampire is a better fighter but definitely not a better interceptor than the Wasp - it's 1500 klicks slower :).

Now, your remarks about torpedoes being not required in WC3 are correct. However, they do work much more efficiently than the Excalibur. The Excal has to survive the turrets, get in close, neutralise the turrets, and only then it can proceed to kill the capship. A Thunderbolt or a Longbow can do it WC2-style - stay out of turret range, get a lock, afterburner in, and fire the torpedoes. What's more, they have much heavier armour. I very much disagree with the idea that an Excal is more likely to survive a capship attack than a Thunderbolt or a Longbow.
 
When attacking just a capship, then OK: the Longbow is better suited. But in most missions you first have to clear a lot of enemy fighters and surviving that in a Longbow was for me always much harder than in an Excalibur. And once the fighters were gone, capships weren't much of a threat. I always took the Excalibur when available, even when flying against lots of capships.
 
To me the killer app in fighters is the autotracking cannons. The Excalibur, Bearcat, and Dragon had these, but unfortunately none of the WCP/SOP fighters did. I thnk it would have been cool if the Vampire had guns that could autotrack as well.

Each of the "superfighters" in the WC universe had one weakness/drawback when compared with the ship(s) that it replaced. This keeps them from being too "perfect" in my opinion, even though they still kick ass.

Crossbow (SO1--replaces Broadsword): no side turrets
Morningstar (SO2--replaces Sabre): only two normal missiles--bad because Mace can only be used at long range
Excalibur (WC3--replaces Arrow/Hellcat): thin armor
Dragon (WC4--replaces Banshee/Vindicator): low gun capacitor--you cannot fire guns long enough to destroy enemy ships in one burst like you can in Excalibur.

The Vampire/Black Vampire might be included as a "superfighter" in this list, but its lack of autotracking cannons makes me hesiant to do so. Do you think the Vampire deserves to be called a superfighter in the SOP era? If not, then what does?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top