Carrier Landing Styles

overmortal said:
Just be glad it wasn't the Landreich. Their safety regulations are even worse than that.
Click to expand...

The Landreich and the Border Worlds are affiliated - and they have the same background, overall. They get stuck with the scraps while Confed gets the new toys, so on both sides... well, if you've read the WC4N, you'll notice that they're also using second-line craft, the way the Landreich did in the earlier novels, because they're all getting it from the same source. Namely, Confed's junkheaps.
 
Viper61 said:
So the 100's of million dollars in hardware or the pilots life (not to mention years of valuable and expensive training) isn't reason enough to land on the carrier during a firefight?
Click to expand...

It's not worth it if both you and the carrier have to be vulnerable for the landing--both your fighter and the carrier have to line up and can not perform ANY evasive maneuvers while attempting a landing, which leaves both wide open to attacks. If recovering one fighter means risking the carrier, it's not worth it.
 
Ijuin said:
It's not worth it if both you and the carrier have to be vulnerable for the landing--both your fighter and the carrier have to line up and can not perform ANY evasive maneuvers while attempting a landing, which leaves both wide open to attacks. If recovering one fighter means risking the carrier, it's not worth it.
Click to expand...
Did we ever see the Midway take evasive action, no matter how thick the bugs got? Plus, I don't think I know of one instance were a carrier aligns itself to an incoming fighter for landing. The only carrier I can think of that actually did any evasive manuevers in a WC game (while fighters were out and about) was the Vesuvius/St. Helens when they were duking it out, but thats a bit different than an ordinary fighter/bomber attack (primary concern is the other capships weaponry, not the fighters). I would also propose that evasive action by a carrier is not something that is nessesarily a good thing. As a carrier, you rely totally on your fighters and escorts for defense. If you are constantly changing your relationship/orientation to your fighter/escort screen cover, how can the commanders of these defending ships effectively defend you? Carriers in WC seem to rely on their laser batteries, point defense systems and fighters to protect them from immediate incoming threats rather than their massive 1-5 degree/sec manueverability.

Just an errant thought, if a carrier (if engaged in evasive manuevers) can't disengage for the 10 seconds or so it seems to take to recover a fighter in WC cutscenes (besides the 'Mad Dash' scene where Eisen, Blair, Maniac and Vagabond land on the tiny Intrepid deck seconds before jump) because of enemy fire, I don't know if I want to be on this vulnerable a carrier in the first place. :)

Eh, I guess it comes down to a personal combat philosophy (since we don't have a Naval Combat Doctorine Manual, circa 2680 ;) ). I'd say a carrier is better served by a pilot coming in and attempting a combat landing, living to fight another day (both pilot and ship), or jumping into another fighter (which we've seen this action a few times in WC lit) to get back into the battle.

C-ya
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top