Bearcat

You probably couldn't honestly call the Vampire a superfighter of its time. Compared to other fighters from previous WC games definitely. However, the Vampire has a very different situation compared to the Excalibur and the Dragon. The Excalibur was vastly superior to anything Confed had at the time of WC3. Both the Excalibur and the Dragon were vastly superior to anything else at the time bar the Bearcat. The Dragon wasn't officially used by Confed, the Excalibur was. That's why it was possible for both the Excalibur and the Dragon to be superfighters in WC4. When the Vampire went into service it was definitely an awesome fighter but it didn't have a huge edge over EVERY fighter. Both the Tigershark and Panther were excellent fighters. Some actually preferred them over the Vampire. Which brings me to my conclusion that a superfighter is more than just stats. It's also about which fighter craft a pilot would choose 9 out of 10 times when heading into a dogfight. The Excalibur and the Dragon had that kind of support. The Vampire doesn't.
 
I ddn't see the Vampire being any less of a super-fighter than the Dragon or the Excal. It comfortably beats out any other fighter in just about every category (speed, agility, guns, missiles, decoys, shields, armour, the lot,) The Excal and the Dragon had weakness compared to ther fighters in their game (the Excal with its armour, the Dragon with its speed and agility.) The Vampire didn't, as it could outrun and outmanever light fighters of its time (something the Dragon and Excal couldn't do) *and* outgun any other fighter of its time *and* take more damage than any other fighter of its time. It was superior across the board.

PS: There are actually people who prefer the Hellcat over the Excalibur and Dragon in WC3 and WC4. Just ask Col. Dom. :D

Best, Raptor
 
Well Raptor, as I said before, it's all a matter of personal opinion. Some people just feel comfortable with certain ships. I know for certain that I bagged more bugs in a Panther than I did with a Vampire. Stats don't mean everything. Your personal flying style means alot more. And I didn't say that no one supported other fighters over the Excal and Drag. I said 9 out of 10 preferred the Excal and Drag.
 
Originally posted by Raptor
PS: There are actually people who prefer the Hellcat over the Excalibur and Dragon in WC3 and WC4. Just ask Col. Dom. :D

Best, Raptor
Click to expand...

OH YEAH!! :cool:

I am also one of those "Tigershark preferred over the Vampire," fans too ;)
 
Quarto: Curiously enough I've actually flown an Arrow and been tailed back to the Victory by 3 Vaktoths. Too bad for them there were two other Arrows waiting for them ;)

As for capships I think the only edge the Thud and 'Bow have is that they can nail a capship quicker than the Excal. But if you're going up against say 5 corvettes, I'd definitely prefer the Excal. With its autoslide it can evade enemy fire, and its tachyons can tear through anything. Also the Excal gives the pilot a better chance of tearing through the defending fighters. So its more likely to survive than the 'Bow or Thud.

Raptor: Although the Vampire is superior to most other fighters across the board, a well flown Devil Ray will give it problems. Indeed a few well placed shots from the Tigershark's CMDs would put away a Vamp. Perhaps the best indication that the Vampire isn't a superfighter is the fact that Panther exists. If the Vamp really were the be all to end all there wouldn't be a need for the Panther.
 
Although the Vampire is superior to most other fighters across the board, a well flown Devil Ray will give it problems. Indeed a few well placed shots from the Tigershark's CMDs would put away a Vamp. Perhaps the best indication that the Vampire isn't a superfighter is the fact that Panther exists. If the Vamp really were the be all to end all there wouldn't be a need for the Panther.
Click to expand...
Well, a well flown Bloodfang will give an Excalibur problems, while a well flown Bearcat or Excal (taking loyal Confed pilots as the enemies of the Black Lance) will give a Dragon problems. The fact that the opposition has similarly capable fighters only proves that the two sides are well matched tech wise.

As for the Panther, it's advantages would be in being smaller and lighter, and able to operate off smaller ships (The WC:p manual says that they are primarily seen on escort carriers) rather than its combat capability.

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by Raptor
As for the Panther, it's advantages would be in being smaller and lighter, and able to operate off smaller ships (The WC:p manual says that they are primarily seen on escort carriers) rather than its combat capability.
Click to expand...

Well I've always found the vertical thrust pods on the Vamp more effective than the horizontal thrust pods on the Panther.
 
Eh? Aren't you meant to be arguing for the Panther? :D I take it you mean that that horizontal thrust pods on the Panther are more effective than the vertical thrust pods on the Vampire. Again, this doesn't prove that the Vampire isn't a superfighter. The Banshee as a marked superior pitch rate to the Dragon, as the Panther has a better yaw rate to the Vampire. That doesn't mean the Dargon isn't a super fighter, does it?

Colonel Hayden: You seem to be basing your definition of a super fighter on *preferance* than on performance. I don't agree that flying style is more important. Take two equally skilled pilots, one who prefers the Vampire and one who prefers the Panther, and who do you think would win 9 out of 10 of those fights? Given that the Vampire pilot has the superior speed (allowing him to choose when and how he engages), the shields and armour to survive more punishment, and the brute firepower to inflict more damage, it would be hard to argue the Panther.

Best, Raptor
 
I'm not basing it on preference mostly. I have flown against my friends for online flight sims like Freespace. Most of us have the same flying style. We usually mix and match fighters. I have won just as many times with an inferior fighter as I have with a superior fighter. We've dogfought in the same fighter as the other and it has taken anywhere from 1 hour to a matter of seconds. A well placed missile can work wonders! :D

I'm just saying that for its time... that even though the Vampire does have superior stats, they are not arranged to make it soooo much better than anything else. Like I said, I've killed more enemies in a Panther than I have in a Vampire. But in the other games I've always had much better luck in an Excalibur(WC3) and a Dragon(WC4).
 
Sorry.... wasn't finished. :rolleyes:

When I was flying an Excalibur I always got the feeling that nothing could touch me. That this fighter would get me through even if my skills and luck weren't so great at the time. I never felt that way in the Vampire and neither have any of my friends.
 
Those same arguments could apply to any fighter in any game. If you were saying that because of that, there is no fighter that can considered out right superior (hence that there are no "super fighters") then I might agree with you. However, I don't see the basis for singling out the Vampire as not being a superfighter when the same arguments could be applied to the Excalibur or the Dragon. Again, your argument seems to be based on how you and your friends *feel* rather than on a quantifiable analysis of the Vampire's ability.

Best, Raptor
 
Then why are we even arguing about this? Let's just say that a "super-fighter" is in how we percieve things but that there is no real super-fighter and get on with our lives. Or, at least this thread which is supposed to be about the Bearcat. :D
 
Heh. I tend to be stubborn. :D Given the Vampire's abilities, I don't see how it can be considered any "less" of a super fighter than any other fighter. "Super fighter" is a differant thing from "favourite fighter", which is the point I've been making.

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by Penguin
I've always found the vertical thrust pods on the Vamp more effective than the horizontal thrust pods on the Panther.
Click to expand...
Same here, even though I find it easier to turn left and right. That's what rolling is for. :)
 
If the Vamp really were the be all to end all there wouldn't be a need for the Panther.
Click to expand...

Then how do you explain the WC4 appearance of Hellcats and Thuds when there's loads of Dragons, Excaliburs and Bearcats crawling all over the place?

The Vampire was designed to be a mostly cost-efficient craft which would give you the most pure fighter for the least buck by getting rid of all those extras (Cloak, Shroud, Tracking, Etc...).

Look at it this way, It has more gun firepower than Excal (Particles vs Ion) it has more missiles (8 IR, 6 FF and 4 MIRV, right?) and it has more speed. (650 cruise velocity, baby!)
Not to mention armor that rivals a bomber. Now tell me, is that a superfighter or what? Oh yeah, Devil rays only have about the same armor as a Piranha.. maybe a little bit more. You usually don't realize how tough WCP/SO fighters are...
 
Originally posted by -<Stiletto>-


Then how do you explain the WC4 appearance of Hellcats and Thuds when there's loads of Dragons, Excaliburs and Bearcats crawling all over the place?
Click to expand...

Well, The Lance is a secret Black Project, so they won't be in general circulation, the Bearcat is a prototype (Wilford said something about the base where you steal them from being a testing centre or something) and the Excaliburs are expensive and still relatively new, so aren't produced in sufficent numbers to replace other fighters (Flash said he didn't see full-scale production occuring for several years)
 
Mekt, Penguin: you're both right, but your arguments are only correct as far as WC3 game conditions go. Yes, in the game, it's very important to be able to take out the fighter escort and the capship, or to take out five corvettes in one mission. However, this is not really a valid argument - we all know that the game missions require the player to do everything by himself because... well, he is the player :).
However, if we were to assume that all ships are being flown by humans (a necessity, I think - otherwise, any ship flown by the player must be considered a super-fighter, regardless of its stats), we need to take a look at how things are done in the WC3 novel or the WC3 manual. And there it's clearly implied that a single fighter doesn't usually go after a capship & escorts or after five corvettes. In both such situations, the Excalibur and the two bombers all lose - all three are totally incapable of taking out your proposed targets solo.
The question then becomes, what will take out a capship with escorts faster and more efficiently - a wing of Excaliburs, or a wing of Longbows and Hellcats, or even a wing of Thunderbolts? I think either of the bomber wings would. The escorts would keep the defenders busy, while the bombers would make their deliveries. The Excaliburs would have clear superiority over any fighter defending the capship, but then they would still need to deal with the capship itself - a task which they would have more difficulty with.

Of course, the most efficient combination of all would be a wing of Excals and Longbows, that goes without saying ;).
 
QUARTO~ Well said. I definately agree with you concerning your post.

QUARTO Previously wrote, "The question then becomes, what will take out a capship with escorts faster and more efficiently - a wing of Excaliburs, or a wing of Longbows and Hellcats, or even a wing of Thunderbolts? I think either of the bomber wings would. The escorts would keep the defenders busy, while the bombers would make their deliveries. The Excaliburs would have clear superiority over any fighter defending the capship, but then they would still need to deal with the capship itself - a task which they would have more difficulty with.

Of course, the most efficient combination of all would be a wing of Excals and Longbows, that goes without saying ."

IF I was flying that mission I would definately want to be behind the controls of an excalibur. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top