favourite kilrathi design

Originally posted by The Hawk
Howdy, all.

After a long time lurking, . . .
Click to expand...

Hello The Hawk, glad to have you aboard! I too like to base my WC experience on my knowledge of physics (since at one point I wanted to be an Aeronautical Engineer, but I chose Electrical instead) and is explaination for my serious dislike for visible cloaking devices (in any universe WC, Star Trek, etc) but that is another story in another post long, long ago (it kindof runs parallel to a discussion thats going on in another thread right now). :) Below are some of my explainations for your inconsistancies.

You already guessed how I assume some of the Kilrathi fighters probably deal with the assymetrical engine placement, by having the mass of a ship distributed a little 'differently'. This would help tremendously in turning in one direction, though hampering in another (I assume the Kilrathi were experimenting with this in the Salthi in WC1 since it's ?engine ports? made a left turn the faster of the 2).

The atmospheric aerodynamics question is a pretty good one. Confed doesn't really have a problem with this since the Hellcat and the Excaliber are the only 2 fighters that are capable of atmospheric flight, and both have 'decently realistic' flight surfaces - the hellcat more than the Excalibur (though in WCATV, the Arrow variant that was around then was atmos. cap. though it is just a variant on the flying wing so that really isn't a problem.) The Kilrathi on the other hand, have a few problems. The Bloodfang (WC3 Novel), Vaktoth (alternate ending sequence on another platform), and the Ekapshi (WC3 PC game) are their fighters that are capable of atmospheric flight. The Vatoth and the Ekapshi are decently ok, but the Bloodfang has some serious problems. I usually assume that sometime in the next 600 years or so, we have a better understanding of aerodynamics and can better use the wing surfaces we see evident in the Kilrathi designs. Take a modern day example. The X-27 (or was it hte X-29?), anyway the experimental fighter plane in the 80's that had a forward swept wing design and if I remember correctly, a forward swept canard on the front was a technological revolution. It was extremely manueverable because the wing desing kept the jet in an unstable 'situation' (actually you could call it quasi-stable ) all the time (a slight touch of the controls sent you over the unstable threshold, giving you unmatched manueverablity). It took a complex computer system to keep the flying surfaces perfectly balanced to give it this 'edge of chaos' flying style (the same concept is being used for the new fighters on the drawing boards that have no tailfins - constantly on the brink of stability). I assume in the time we (or at least the Kilrathi learned how to master this design style. Or like you said, this was a reason they couldn't hit the broadside of a Longbow sometimes ;) ).

Landing. . . you know this is one issue I've never thought of. I guess I always assumed that the fighters landed on some kind of tripod landing gear (like the Dralthi we see lined up in carriers in WC3). I also assume that any fighter that has tailfin or wing surfaces that prevent them form landing has some sort of system that lays down the obstruction against the body of the craft or even is the landing surface in itself. I also assume that they land like a VTOL fighter so they don't nessacerily have to have wheels to land (and catapults would be how they lanched, but how would you transport them around the deck? :( )
How they land is a good point to bring up though !

There are some of my thoughts on the subject, but you're more than welcome to your own explainations. Catch you around!

C-ya
 
There are very few fighters in WC that have true aerodynamics that could possibly take flight in an atmosphere, using only airfoils for lift.

Most of the fighters have various parts of the craft that would disrupt the airflow over the craft, such as engine nacells or stumped wings or huge canopy.

Two that I can think of, one for sure that CAN fly with its wings are:

WC Privateer-Confed/InSys "Stilletto"
WC Privateer-Centurion "2069"

These two craft have plenty of airfoil surface for conventional lift, as well as very aerodynamic hulls. But both have large engine nacells and very little vertical fin or tail section for vertical stability.

Of course tho, in the WC world, the craft that can fly in atmospheres have systems to augment conventional airfoil lift, such as anti-grav units or repulsors. If a craft has such technology, you dont need to worry about aerodynamics or even apply conventional aerodynamic flight physics. But a craft with both an aerodynamic hull, and wings with enough surface area, combined with gravity repulsors, thats a whole different story!

But I guarantee that the WC Privateer craft "Centurion" can fly using its wings with added control surfaces, a slightly larger tail fin (vertical stabalizer/rudder) on the engine nacells, and outfit the landing struts with wheels, put a good engine in it, like a cox engine or a mini-jet engine like those used on survelance systems being developed for the military that hover, you can make the Centurion really fly.

Someday, after I rebuild my model, I will post a few pics. My model crashed due to some over enthusiastic ham operator causing interference on my radio controller's frequency, and down it came! BOOM!
 
I agree that the Darket is a cool-looking ship, but it is just too weak to make much of an opponent--it has barely half the shields and offensive power of the Arrow. Compare:

Darket
Max Speed: 520 kps
Max Afterburner Speed: 1350 kps
Turn Rate: 90/80/90 dps
Guns: Meson (2)
Missiles: HS (2)
Shields: 80 (fore) / 80 (aft)
Armor: 60 (fore) / 60 (aft) / 40 (port) / 40 (star)

Arrow
Max Speed: 520 kps
Max Afterburner Speed: 1400 kps
Turn Rate: 80/90/90 dps
Guns: Laser (2), Ion (2)
Missiles: HS/IR (2X4)
Shields: 200 (fore) / 200 (aft)
Armor: 80 (fore) / 80 (aft) / 60 (port) / 60 (star)

As can be seen, even though the two fighters have comparable speed and maneuverability, the Darket has vastly inferior armament. I would like to see the Darket with double the shields (160 cm instead of 80 cm), four HS missiles instead of two, and the guns either upgraded from Meson cannons to Particle cannons, or changed to 2 Meson / 2 Laser (giving it four guns comparable in strength to the guns on the Arrow). This would make the Darket much more interesting to dogfight against. As things stand currently, the Darket is hard to hit, but is basically like a gnat--it is too weak to hurt you unless you are outnumbered three to one, and it crumbles as soon as you can get in a couple of good hits.
 
This is a little off subject but has anyone ever noticed how the Kilrathi don't seem to beleive in missiles the way that Confed does? Even in WC1 confed craft had on average double the missles of their Kilrathi counterparts. Any explainations? I personally think the Kilrathi just like their killing up close and dirty. Thoughts?

I wouldn't compare the darkets to gnats (though they seem to fly like them sometimes), I give them a little more credit than that. I think of them as wolves. Alone they can do very little damage, but when hunting in packs, even a hunter with a rifle could be overwhelmed.

C-ya
 
The lack of Kilrathi missiles was probably a play balance issue. I mean, you've got to take a single load of missiles to get you through the full mission. The Kilrathi only have to worry about their missiles at one point - i.e. when they fight you.
 
Originally posted by Viper61
This is a little off subject but has anyone ever noticed how the Kilrathi don't seem to beleive in missiles the way that Confed does? Even in WC1 confed craft had on average double the missles of their Kilrathi counterparts. Any explainations? I personally think the Kilrathi just like their killing up close and dirty. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Play balance is definitely the real-world reason; if you ran up against a squadron of Kilrathi and had a half-dozen ImRecs after you as soon as you engaged, there's no way the player would survive. OTOH, I always thought this could be explained in-game as a part of an overarching difference in philosophies between the Kilrathi and Confed militaries, roughly analogous to the difference between the Russian and U.S. Cold War (non-nuclear) strategy. Essentially, the Kilrathi produce more quick, manueverable fighters than the Confed. These are underarmed when compared to their Confed counterparts. The Kilrathi then throw more of these fighters at their Confed opponents (hence explaining why you're almost always outnumbered). The Confederation, on the other hand, relies on heavily armed, more durable ships and better trained pilots to make up the difference in numbers. As a consequence, the Confed ships have more guns, more missiles, more armor, but less manueverability (and are almost always outnumbered).

At least, that's my thinking on the matter.
 
Originally posted by The Hawk
Play balance is definitely the real-world reason; if you ran up against a squadron of Kilrathi and had a half-dozen ImRecs after you as soon as you engaged, there's no way the player would survive. OTOH, I always thought this could be explained in-game as a part of an overarching difference in philosophies between the Kilrathi and Confed militaries, roughly analogous to the difference between the Russian and U.S. Cold War (non-nuclear) strategy. Essentially, the Kilrathi produce more quick, manueverable fighters than the Confed. These are underarmed when compared to their Confed counterparts. The Kilrathi then throw more of these fighters at their Confed opponents (hence explaining why you're almost always outnumbered). The Confederation, on the other hand, relies on heavily armed, more durable ships and better trained pilots to make up the difference in numbers. As a consequence, the Confed ships have more guns, more missiles, more armor, but less manueverability (and are almost always outnumbered).

At least, that's my thinking on the matter.
Click to expand...

...And a good explanation too. This situation is synonymous with that of the mid-twentieth century Soviet philosophy with quantity over quality. Well, with having such programs as Top Gun and Red Flag for American pilots, that means many more letters written on the part of the Soviets! (Though they probably had pre-written formats with fill-in-the-blanks to insert names wherever!)
 
Its a little off topic but the same happens with the new Alien Race...They have better ships than Kilrathi, but again worse than Confed`s.... (Except the Devil Ray maybe which kick`s ass)

They are based on numbers again.They are like bugs....MANY.
In every navpoint you get lots of them.
Also they have to co-operate to make importand damage.Even their "bombers" Strigray must be 3 of them put together to begin their run...You have noticed that dont you ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top