Longbow Gripes

ChrisReid said:
Think about what bombers are meant for. Heavy guns (which are often the more short range ones) are also important for destroying capships, even in WC2.
Click to expand...

Good point.

Dyret said:
Did confed fighter turrets in WC3 ever hurt anything at all? They never seemed very useful.
Click to expand...

Not that I remember. I liked how you could switch to the rear view in the VDU and watch the utter ineffetiveness of your turret. :)


frostytheplebe said:
Though I did like the thundering sound of the mass driver.
Click to expand...

Thundering? It's been long (too long) since I played WC 3 but I have a rather high pitched sound for WC3's MD in my ear...a bit electric too.

Farbourne said:
I disagree with the sentiment that capship combat was at its best in WC2. I think that Origin's INTENT was best in WC2, but the execution always seemd to fall short of the mark. I love the idea of trying to re-create WWII era torpedo runs, where big, slow, turreted ships slowly make their way into range of a lumbering capship, relying on their turrets and escorts to keep the fighters off, and then release the torp and get the hell out of Dodge. However, I think in all the times I played through WC2, things actually worked this way maybe once.
Click to expand...

To each his own. It's true that attacking a Ralatha or Fralthra with its fighters still up was pretty suicidal in WC2 but you sure weren't supposed to do it. You had no fighter escort to rely on anyway.

Though I do agree that it would be awesome to recreate the WC2 bombing runs with an AB-less bomber, manning the turrets and having an actual fighter escort while your bomber really would be unable to dogfight. That'd be a challenge. Though the friendly AI would have to be good enough not to frustrate you to no end.

Farbourne said:
1) Despite having three turrets and lots of armor, the Broadsword's defenses never seemed adequate to protect it from more than about one or two fighters while on a torpedo run. If there were more than that attacking you (either because you had not fighter support, no wingmen, didn't take out enough fighters before starting your run, or all of the above), you were pretty much toast. Maybe I was just not good enough with a turret...but when there's only one of me, three turrets, and fighters attacking from all six sides, that seems like pretty long odds. I know the turrets would fire themselves, but the guys in those turrets must have sucked, too, because they never hit anything.
Click to expand...

I found WC 2's turrets to be pretty effective thanks to their very high refire rate and good damage when operated manually. But even on autofire, the turrets managed to shoot down an enemy ship. I never had the experience with WC 3, 4 or WCP.


Farbourne said:
2). I generally didn't even dare man the turrets on a torp run because then you had to rely on the auto-launch of the torpedo once it got its lock. The capships in WC2 were way too good at shooting down torpedoes with their flak cannons...in general, you had to get within about 1500 klicks or so before you launched, or your torpedo would be shot down. The autolaunch would launch too early about 8 times out of 10, and too late (and hence never launch at all, because I would be dead) the ninth time. Probably there was a way to time the run a little better, but I had real troubles, especially when the capship was moving.

3). Once I got to Special Ops, the Capships suddenly seemed to figure out how to actually aim their AM guns at fighters. If you tried a "traditional" torpedo run under these conditions, manning the turrets while your fighter flies straight, boom. Hello mister big-blob-thats-not-a-neutron-gun. The only way I found to negotiate them was to stay out of range until the torps got a lock and then afterburner in to close range before the AM guns could fire, or to continuously make gradual course changes to throw off their aim without losing torp lock...which precluded using the turrets.
Click to expand...

That's what made it so challenging (and fun for me), the capship itself was a threat to you. The WC 3 capship (except the corvette) weren't a real threat and the WCP capships only a little more so, mostly because of their missile turrets.
 
Farbourne said:
Personally, I liked the capship model of WC3/4 the best...having to maneuver around laser and AM gun fire to try to get inside the capship, or at least into its vulnerable spot, and then firing as long as you could until fighters drove you out...
Click to expand...

Yea I liked Capships in WC3 too cept some seemed a little too easy to take down ya know
 
I found the combat around capships in WC3/4 to be the most entertaining for lack of a better word. I agree that dodging around turret was fairly easy on everything except the Kamrani, but the combat seemed very alive otherwise. Space was full of rounds coming at you. You quickly learned that those big yellow bastards coming off the ships were the ones most important to avoid.

I feel capship combat just looked the best then. When you attack say a Fralthi II and you see all it's turrets firing away from a bit of a distant it looks well beautiful. In WCP/SO this effect is somewhat lost it seems or I should say reduced, it just doesn't evoke the same flair I see in WC3 especially. Perhaps it has something to do with the blue-ish nature of space in WC3 or just the capship/turret design philosophy.
 
frostytheplebe said:
Sure that wasn't the Meson blaster? I remember a deep echoing sound... then again I was playing it on PSX.
Click to expand...

I see how my less than perfect description would make you think of the Meson Blaster but no, I don't mean that sound (which is a very remarkable sound). Maybe the MD has a different on the PSX but most likely I just suck at describing sounds. :)


Dundradal said:
I found the combat around capships in WC3/4 to be the most entertaining for lack of a better word. I agree that dodging around turret was fairly easy on everything except the Kamrani, but the combat seemed very alive otherwise. Space was full of rounds coming at you. You quickly learned that those big yellow bastards coming off the ships were the ones most important to avoid.
(...)
Click to expand...

That is something I still find was better in WC 2: you're approaching the Ralatha, you see the first flak bolts coming at you, your screen starts flashing red slowly and the nearer you come the redder it becomes, your shields drop with every second a little further - it really was exciting in my opinion.
 
I actually liked the Longbow although it is slow and does only have 1 rear turret....The Frontal Guns were pretty sick...I mean any ship with plasmas are bound to kick some booty
 
Just to tell you....The Longbow is actually included in the Collateral Damage Mod.. I'll have to show some screenshots haha. It's actually the ship for a Hot shot Torpedo Bomber Wing From a Midway class ship
 
I realize it doesn't have much to do with bombers. But how come you don't get to use the meson guns ever again after WC3? (I haven't played arena so I don't know if they appear there).
 
Mekt-Hakkikt said:
The Meson gun is also in Privateer - where it also has a nice sound to it.
Click to expand...

The Reaper gun was always my favorite! It sounded like a pulse power shot, and dealt extreme damage.

Never really got the credit it really deserved though... bring replaced in WCPSO by that crappy Ion gun... possibly also in WC4, and replaced by the particle gun in WC Standoff.
 
I always found it strange how I loved one of the bombers from WC3 and hated the other. The Thunderbolt had too few hardpoints on her, but made up for it with the single torpedo and the heavy front guns. I could take on an armada (and did!) with one of those.

Yet the better armored, better armed and slow-as-the-day-is-long Longbow was just incredibly, endlessly awful.
 
LeHah said:
I always found it strange how I loved one of the bombers from WC3 and hated the other. The Thunderbolt had too few hardpoints on her, but made up for it with the single torpedo and the heavy front guns. I could take on an armada (and did!) with one of those.

Yet the better armored, better armed and slow-as-the-day-is-long Longbow was just incredibly, endlessly awful.
Click to expand...

A rare occurrence but I agree with LeHah here. I often found myself choosing the Thunderbolt over the Longbow on strike missions. The lack of missile hardpoints was a drawback, but the power of the forward guns and that single Lance made easy work of most capships.

Even when I play WC3 now, if the option for the Thunderbolt is there, it's my fighter of choice.
 
frostytheplebe said:
The Reaper gun was always my favorite! It sounded like a pulse power shot, and dealt extreme damage.

Never really got the credit it really deserved though... bring replaced in WCPSO by that crappy Ion gun... possibly also in WC4, and replaced by the particle gun in WC Standoff.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the WC3 Reaper gun or the WC Academy or Armada Reaper gun? I guess you mean the WC 3 gun because of your comment about it being replaced by the Ion gun.

I am sorry to disagree again but I found the WC3 Reaper gun to be rather boring. It was in the same range as so many other guns (Ion, Photon, Meson) and it did not stand out in my opinion. Sure, it was better than those guns but its effects were neglible compared to the 4 Tachyon guns you had. Also, I don't remember doing it that much damage in WC 3.

Now in Academy, hoo boy, that was gun!

LeHah said:
I always found it strange how I loved one of the bombers from WC3 and hated the other. The Thunderbolt had too few hardpoints on her, but made up for it with the single torpedo and the heavy front guns. I could take on an armada (and did!) with one of those.

Yet the better armored, better armed and slow-as-the-day-is-long Longbow was just incredibly, endlessly awful.
Click to expand...

Dundradal said:
A rare occurrence but I agree with LeHah here. I often found myself choosing the Thunderbolt over the Longbow on strike missions. The lack of missile hardpoints was a drawback, but the power of the forward guns and that single Lance made easy work of most capships.

Even when I play WC3 now, if the option for the Thunderbolt is there, it's my fighter of choice.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, the Thunderbolt was the ship of choice until the Exaclibur showed up (though I wouldn't class the Thunderbolt as bomber).

And the Vindicator was also a much better bomber than the Avenger I thought.
 
Drizzt Do Urden said:
I'd have to agree with you about the Vindicator.
Click to expand...

I'll third that opinion. I liked the 2 tachs and 2 lasers of the Vindicator more than the heavy photon and mass driver of the Avenger and you didn't really lose that much...some armor and shields and a torp mount mostly. The speed of the Vindicator was more than enough to balance it all out.
 
Mekt-Hakkikt said:
Do you mean the WC3 Reaper gun or the WC Academy or Armada Reaper gun? I guess you mean the WC 3 gun because of your comment about it being replaced by the Ion gun.

I am sorry to disagree again but I found the WC3 Reaper gun to be rather boring. It was in the same range as so many other guns (Ion, Photon, Meson) and it did not stand out in my opinion. Sure, it was better than those guns but its effects were neglible compared to the 4 Tachyon guns you had. Also, I don't remember doing it that much damage in WC 3.

Now in Academy, hoo boy, that was gun!





I totally agree, the Thunderbolt was the ship of choice until the Exaclibur showed up (though I wouldn't class the Thunderbolt as bomber).

And the Vindicator was also a much better bomber than the Avenger I thought.
Click to expand...

Yeah I always lumped the three together... an admitted oversight on my part. If i had to chose, I'd def go with the Academy version.

I also agree with the three of you. The Tbolt was an effective bomber, which I feel was most recognized in WCPSO, as that appeared to be its primary role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top