Hellcat V gripes

frostytheplebe

frostytheplebe

Seventh Part of the Seal
I'm sorry to complain so much, but why does it seem like this fighter is so popular? I found it disgustingly underpowered, armor that rivals the Epee, and is a complete eyesore. Yet it seems to be the "staple" fighter in WC3 and in WC4 its employed more then anything else by the Confederation. You have to fly off it for the majority of the first disk (the rest of the time your flying off the brick version of an x-wing), and you see it all the time throughout the rest of the game. Seriously, give me banshee or a vindicator or even an Arrow over that miserable excuse for a fighter... hell I even like the Scim infinitely better.
 
frostytheplebe said:
I'm sorry to complain so much, but why does it seem like this fighter is so popular? I found it disgustingly underpowered, armor that rivals the Epee, and is a complete eyesore. Yet it seems to be the "staple" fighter in WC3 and in WC4 its employed more then anything else by the Confederation. You have to fly off it for the majority of the first disk (the rest of the time your flying off the brick version of an x-wing), and you see it all the time throughout the rest of the game. Seriously, give me banshee or a vindicator or even an Arrow over that miserable excuse for a fighter... hell I even like the Scim infinitely better.
Click to expand...

It must be cheap. Er, inexpensive. Even in wartime (which arguably, WC4 isn't quite) everyone has to work within a budget. The USAF isn't replacing all of its standing Eagles and Vipers with Raptors, after all, and probably wouldn't unless we get into a major conventional war against a country with a serious air force.

Arguably Blair rates a better craft than a Hellcat, but with his reputation, you'd think a squad of pirates flying Thunderbolts would run screaming for the nearest jump point if Blair arrived in a Scimitar or Ferret and ordered an immediate surrender.

Nobody seems to much care for the general-purpose, baseline multirole fighter. Well, there are at least a few Hellcat fans in the forum. I find the Hellcat so decidedly average that I never picked it for a mission when I had other choices available, but all things considered I don't think it's a really bad fighter... just a really boring fighter. It has good firepower, probably too few missiles, and above-average protection, at least compared to almost everything on the Kilrathi side. It can handle nearly whatever you throw at it, even though it's not particularly good at slaughtering anything. It's not great, but it's good enough.
 
You know, thinking about Blair in a Hellcat made me curious. Were there many aces in the confederation that would pick a single fighter type and stick with it? I know we see some fighter personalization in the WC movie (kill scores and callsigns come to mind) but past that, it seems like you were expected to be a jack of all trades.

Although, in WC1, the Tiger's Claw had distinct squadrons that flew only one fighter type. I find it strange that Blair (or Blue Hair) would transfer between squadrons so frequently.

I guess after my incoherent ramble, that the question is whether or not it was more common in the TCN to constantly rotate among fighter types or to be assigned to a squadron, train on one type and stick with it?
 
Well you could say that all the squadrons were short one person, and Blair just happened to be the guy that was transfered all around the place to different squadrons when that squad needed that extra guy the most.

In Prophecy, there was a rookie squadron and the ace squadron. (I kind of forgot the names sorry) So it could be decided on the pilots kill number.

Personally I think it varies per ship.
 
I also thought the Hellcat was a poor fighter. It was slower and less maneuverable than the Arrow AND had less missiles. It's armor and guns were a little better, but I thought this was a poor trade-off. I also wondered why this was the standard fighter. I came to the same conclusion that Toast suggested: that the fighter must be inexpensive as well as low maintenence. That could explain why we didn't see Arrows or Thuds flying off the Lexington in WC4. Since it was peacetime, Confed may have switched to a more economical fighter force.

Also, after playing czacen's "WC4 Strategy" Homeworld2 Mod, I realized another reason for the Hellcat's value. In huge fleet engagements where fighters are swarming in huge numbers, a cheap fighter with powerful guns and armor becomes more valuable than a nimble finess fighter. In mass numbers when travelling head on, the Hellcats would rip many of the Arrows to shreds on the first pass; giving them a numerical advantage. Out maneuvering a single opponent becomes trivial in the swirling dogfight that would develop. Hellcats would once again have an advantage since no matter which direction you're facing, there's an enemy in front of you and the Hellcats would have more powerful guns and armor to give it extra staying power.
 
Easy to maintain and easy to repair has value, also. If the Hellcat's simplicity allows it to be repaired and serviced quickly, it can sortie more often than a more complex fighter. Assuming the pilot can keep bringing it back, it can contribute more combat time than a trickier, more high-maintenance fighter. This also might be like the USN's F-18's, which are multirole fighters (having replaced both the F-14 and the A-6) and by all accounts, not particularly formidable air superiority craft. Ruggedness and ease of maintenance are very desirable attributes for carrier aircraft, and I've heard that the F-18 can be turned around and relaunched faster than a lot of other fighters. Suppose, for the sake of argument (unsubtantiated) that a Hellcat can sortie three times in a day while an Arrow can only manage two; all else being equal, the Hellcats can keep a more robust CAP umbrella up around the fleet, even if the pilots sitting in the cockpit would rather by flying Arrows.

Good ACM and teamwork can also play up the Hellcat's strengths. IIRC, the USN F4F Wildcat was clumsier but more rugged than the IJN Zero. While a Wildcat was a poor match for a Zero in a one-on-one dogfight, ACM's like the Thatch Weave forced Zeroes to expose themselves to wingman fire any time they managed to get on a Wildcat's six. Although it was an uncomfortable position for the Wildcats to be in, it at least forced the Zeroes to give up their comparative advantage in speed an maneuverability (which happens when you're tailing a target) and expose their vulnerabilities (poor armor). Thatch Weave is probably dicier when you're outnumbered 2 to 1, though.

All are possibilities. The Hellcat has to have some redeeming features, and logistical qualities are strategically important too.
 
I always liked the Hellcat, the underdog fighter,

reminds me of the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain, shoots down its fair share of the enemy fighters and bombers, but is overshadowed by the flashier Spitfire

Everyone likes the Arrow and the Thud, but the Hellcat got the job done as well :)
 
In Prophecy, there was a rookie squadron and the ace squadron. (I kind of forgot the names sorry) So it could be decided on the pilots kill number.
Click to expand...

These were actually 'Wings' (that's a discussion for another thread), but they were 'Diamondback' and 'Black Widow' respectively.

Hellcats would once again have an advantage since no matter which direction you're facing, there's an enemy in front of you and the Hellcats would have more powerful guns and armor to give it extra staying power.
Click to expand...

Unless they're the Hellcats and Arrows from Victory Streak.:)

No, but I think there's probably a lot to fighters that just doesn't appear in the games themselves. Things like range and duration, for instance, are big issues that aren't important to playing the game... but they must be incredibly relevant to fighter tactics in general. What if the Hellcat has three times the range of the Arrow?
 
While it didn't have the Rapier's superior firepower, it also didn't have the Rapier's ability to explode when the shields went down.
 
McGruff said:
In any case, it's probably a whole lot better than the Hellcat IV.
Click to expand...

Not always! The Rapier II (WC1) is far more versatile then her WC2 counterpart. (I know I'll take flak for this) but I liked the laser/neutron gun combo. Plus it seemed somewhat faster.
 
Well, all I know is that in-game, the hellcat sucks really hard. I'd always fly Arrows or Thuds when we had the "basic trio" of options. Always.
 
I only flew the the Hellcat when you had no choice in the matter. Not a favorite choice for putting a fighter between me and the cold void. I always ended up sucking void a lot faster in a Hellcat than any other fighter aside form the Epee of course. :)
 
We know nothing about the Hellcat's range, price, or ease of maintenance- only that it's an old design, and one whose parts seem generic enough to be cannibalized by Pliers for whatever the Border Worlds have flying.

It IS a very average craft, and given that we're all used to super~fighters or whatever fits our flying styles...
 
I thouroughly dislike the Hellcat V. Not because it's essentially bad as the Armada Phantom is (though it's far from impressive) but because it's incredibly boring.
 
She gets the job done. I like the design, she is a workhorse, not a highfligher.

I disliked my diesel opel corsa as well, but her "armor" saved my life when i got head-butted in a battle between a volkswagen and the rear end of a truck this year.

A hellcat is tougher, shields regenerate, but once they go down, you can take that extra hit that makes the difference.
 
Y'know, at first I hated the Hellcat, both in WC3 adn WC4, but I've grown to appreciate it. It's distinguished from the Arrow and Thunderbolt in that it doesn't force you to commit to one extreme or the other. The ion and neutron guns (Ion and Particle Cannon later on) had a satisfying punch, which the Arrow decidedly lacked. It had enough missiles to supplement it's lack of gun punch in comparison to the Thunderbolt. And, while the Thunderbolt had all the guns neccessary to shred anything foolish enough to get in front of it, getting a Darket there was a challenging prospect. With any amount of skill, the Hellcat could turn-and-burn enough to bring a Darket or Dralthi into its cone of fire.

I guess what I'm saying is that it was the fighter for people who didn't like putting all their eggs in one basket. Relying solely on speed, or solely on gunpower could quickly prove fatal, but in the hands of a wise handler the Hellcat was hard-pressed to be caught with its pants down!
 
In WC4 it was fairly good, but Neutron guns were rubbish - the Hellcat in WC3 was very much a useless short-range fighter, since Neutron guns have such a short range. The WC4 hellcat is probably equal to any of the border worlds ships you get to fly though.
 
Nightshade said:
In WC4 it was fairly good, but Neutron guns were rubbish - the Hellcat in WC3 was very much a useless short-range fighter, since Neutron guns have such a short range. The WC4 hellcat is probably equal to any of the border worlds ships you get to fly though.
Click to expand...

Not even! I LOVED the vindicator! Lasers and Tachyon guns, my favorite combo. Plus it was fairly versatile, and I did like the speed... somewhat lacking on armor, but I fair better in lighter fighters.
 
The WC3 Hellcat only had a 120 damage unit gun volley compared to the Arrow's 96, and only had 100 armor to the Arrow's 80, and 220 shields to the Arrow's 200. In comparison, you lost 20% of the speed and 1/3 of the agility, and you carried two fewer missiles. As a result, the Hellcat felt weaker to me than the Arrow.

The WC4 variant of the Hellcat, however, with the 144 damage unit gun volley (Ion/Particle--and the Particle guns gave it more range than the Neutrons), and 30 units more shields than the WC3 variant, felt much better balanced. If we could have had Particle guns on the WC3 version, then I think it would have felt much better balanced. As it was, it felt like it lacked punch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top