Favorite fighter, Favorite bomber

Ehh, I have to side with whoever it is who isn't Frosty on this one -- the definition of a heavy carrier *should* involve how heavy its armor is. Lexingtons is, of course, fairly heavy... it's just that the Torpedo does 1,800 cm of damage instead of 800 (WC3) or 200 (WC4). :)
 
Uh.. by refering to me breaking heavy stuff, I was refering to things like Vases and other smallish objects. NOT a several thousand ton carrier. Punching out some fat person hardly has anything to do with taking out a large carrier...
 
Confused

One thing that always confused me about Armada was that all of the ships were so much lighter than in all of the other games; I seem to remember the Arrow coming in at somewhereabouts 2 tons, and the biggest figher/bomber in the game under 10 tons. If I remember correctly, the carriers were also rather underweight, but all of the ships were significantly bigger than anything in WC2 and most of the stuff in WC3. The armor was also much thinner...
 
Re: Confused

Originally posted by Rampage3051
One thing that always confused me about Armada was that all of the ships were so much lighter than in all of the other games; I seem to remember the Arrow coming in at somewhereabouts 2 tons, and the biggest figher/bomber in the game under 10 tons. If I remember correctly, the carriers were also rather underweight, but all of the ships were significantly bigger than anything in WC2 and most of the stuff in WC3. The armor was also much thinner...
Click to expand...

Later that day, two and two were put together.
 
Yeah, but the gameplay balance remained (well...sorta). I mean, even though the fighters had, like, 5 cm of armor (at most), they were alot harder to kill than a comparable WC1/2/3/etc. fighter with comparable armor thicknesses. It still took several volleys to bring down light fighters, like the Arrow, even though it had about 1 cm of armor on any facing, and about that much equivalent shielding. Plus, the fighters mounted tons of missiles, guns, torps, etc. that should have (?) made them weigh alot more...

I always thought that Armada was kind of...apart from the rest of the WC's, technical-wise, maybe because the ships were all Special Ops or whatever.

Oh, I almost forgot the whole point of this thread:

Fighter (WC games): WC3 Arrow and WC2 Sabre
Fighter (Priv games): Priv 2 Drakkar
Figher (overall): WC2 Sabre

Bomber (WC games only...?): Tough choice...tie between WC2 Broadsword (sleek lines and 3 turrets), WC3 Longbow (16 FF's...need I say more?), and WCP Devastator (Plasma gun "makes torpedoes optional")
 
I hate bombers in WC... I would fly it if there was a kind of B-17 in the games... yeah, with 10 young gunners, flying and fighting from freedom (I've just re-watched "Memphis Belle" ;) )
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Ehh, I have to side with whoever it is who isn't Frosty on this one -- the definition of a heavy carrier *should* involve how heavy its armor is. Lexingtons is, of course, fairly heavy... it's just that the Torpedo does 1,800 cm of damage instead of 800 (WC3) or 200 (WC4). :)
Click to expand...

I disagree .. "Heavy" should probably refer to it's size and mass as well as it's armor. The two usually go together.

I suggest that Lexington was BUILT as a heavy carrier, but advances in technology rendered it vulnerable, just as the "Tiger" tank of WWII was nearly invulnerable in its day but today would be a steel coffin for anyone who took it out against an Abrams.

Thus, the Lexington retains the size and mission specs of a fleet carrier but not the protection of one.


Respectfully,
Brian P.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Ehh, I have to side with whoever it is who isn't Frosty on this one -- the definition of a heavy carrier *should* involve how heavy its armor is. Lexingtons is, of course, fairly heavy... it's just that the Torpedo does 1,800 cm of damage instead of 800 (WC3) or 200 (WC4). :)
Click to expand...

I 've played WC4 through recently. The Torpedo does 2000 cm damage as far as I remeber.
 
yuck.

Longbow? eeew. I like my Dev and it's torpedo gun. It makes torps mostly useless. You can actually now take out those 8 tritons, instead of praying that your wing has enough torps.
 
Re: yuck.

Originally posted by -<Stiletto>-
Longbow? eeew. I like my Dev and it's torpedo gun. It makes torps mostly useless. You can actually now take out those 8 tritons, instead of praying that your wing has enough torps.
Click to expand...

It isn´t a Torpedo gun, it is a HEAVY PLASMA cannon
 
Originally posted by Lynx


I 've played WC4 through recently. The Torpedo does 2000 cm damage as far as I remeber.
Click to expand...

2000 damage units... 1 damage unit equals .1 cm... 200 cm <G>
 
Just a question

WC3 manual: CapShip missile -> penetration: 60,000 mm equal to 6,000 cm or 60 meters. Isn't it... too much ?
I mean, do capital ships have more than 50 meters of armor ?
 
CSMs are generally used for orbital bombardment, though -- they're not especially effective against other capships, since they're so easy to shoot down.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
CSMs are generally used for orbital bombardment, though -- they're not especially effective against other capships, since they're so easy to shoot down.
Click to expand...

Not that you'd know it from the amount of attention your wingmen typically give to them...

*grumble*

You're right, though. About the only difficult ones are the skipper missile and cap ship missiles that you can't damage until after the firing cap ship has been nullified (still sore about that one in SOP due to the fact that I screwed up that mission a couple of times by flying into the missiles before they'd been launched).
The Midway defense mission in WCP that has incoming cap ship missiles is a good example of the ease of dealing with cap ship missiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top