New dimensions to space warfare?

Part of what makes the mass drivers worth it is that they require you to be in close to a moving, twisting target to use, meaning your own manuevers are more erratic, which limits the enemy's ability to hit you. Also, close range means that you are more likely to hit (regardless of skill level) and that alone makes up for the difference in power in many situations.
 
Ferret: fast, agile and sturdy patrol fighter. Good armor and two MD with high fire rate. Could be fitted with HS missiles.

Epee: fast, agile and lite fighter. Thin and weak armor and mediocre particle cannons with slow fire rate. Can't stand against a swarm of ferrets or mediocre opposition with better missiles loadout.
Click to expand...
What? You've got a vivid imagination :). Like I said before, there's no such thing as a high or low fire rate in WC2. All the guns fire at the same rate.

Chernikov: However, the particle cannon is faster (almost double the speed of the MD), which means the target is more likely to be hit. Also, the damage potential difference is much too large to be offset by what you mentioned. The MD does 3cm, while the Particle does 5.1cm - not quite double, but close.
 
I think he meant recharge rate, Quarto. The Epee has a pretty slow recharge rate, and so does the sabre, if you use full guns.
I think the Ferret is quite better than the Epee in almost every aspect, not to mention the super Ferret, with it`s extra 2 missiles, which is by far superior, IMO, to any other fighter of it`s type.
The Epee may not be as bad as some folks think, but there`s no comparing it to a ferret.
 
The SHrike and Devestator are used for two different roles. For an all around ship i would choose the shrike(hellcat actually but a little old by this time). I would use it to attack transports, light crusiers, destroyers. But against a heavey crusier, carriers, and big ships i would take the devestator. It really depends on what the job is.
 
Against Heavy ships the Devastator Rocks, but against lighter ships I would perfer a fighter bomber to the shrike
 
I have found it to be quite annoying when there are more capships than torps on a Shrike, though, like in Sirius of SO. You can't count on your wingmen to take down the rest, cos they always shoot before the turrets are taken down. :( A major bummer against Tritons.

Personally, I don't think I prefer any ship over another, I've trained myself to do the best whatever the ship I'm assigned. Plus I still say the plasma gun and torps work well together. Besides, if you can't shoot down ships with that gun, what use are you? :D
 
Originally posted by Wedge009
I have found it to be quite annoying when there are more capships than torps on a Shrike, though, like in Sirius of SO. You can't count on your wingmen to take down the rest, cos they always shoot before the turrets are taken down. :( A major bummer against Tritons.
Click to expand...
Happened to me few times during that mission. But if you go after those turrets quickly, your wingman shouldn't waste much torps. Besides, if the AI wasn't that dumb, there wouldn't be problems like that.:)

Plus I still say the plasma gun and torps work well together.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have two or three light Plasma guns, and two or three MD's or CMD's on the Dev, instead of the heavy Plasma (and either SF from Prophecy or Tachyon from SO). Taking out fighters and turrets would be easier, and you could still damage capships without torps.
 
I would definitely like light plasma guns, say have 4 of them = 1 heavy plasma but have them retain the ability to go through phase shields, then we could have a bomber that could still deal damnage out to cap ships but could also be able to hold its own in a dog fight, add a rear turret with a light plasma and then the bomber could deal out damage to a cap ship even as she is pulling away
 
That's almost defeating the purpose of a bomber. It is supposed to take out the big ships and let the escorts worry about the fighter cover. This is known as air defense suppression (or wild weasel). :)

That many Plasma Cannons would also have a serious drain on your fighter's power supply. This means that your bomber would go even slower.
 
I forgot to include the power drain on your guns themselves. It takes long enough for one Plasma Cannon to recharge. Your refire delay with four would be huge!
 
Originally posted by WildWeasel
That's almost defeating the purpose of a bomber. It is supposed to take out the big ships and let the escorts worry about the fighter cover.
Click to expand...
The bomber will have to defend itself if there aren't any fighters around though. Something that happens all to often in games where the AI ain't exactly flying with a 180 IQ.:)

That many Plasma Cannons would also have a serious drain on your fighter's power supply

I forgot to include the power drain on your guns themselves. It takes long enough for one Plasma Cannon to recharge. Your refire delay with four would be huge!
Click to expand...
But we're talking light Plasma guns, that individually require less energy and have a faster refire rate. Besides, I'm not talking 4 like Napoleon, but rather 2 or 3, which would fire faster than a single heavy Plasma cannon.
 
You mean a Plasma Gun? That makes more sense. I didn't see anything about a Light Plasma Cannon in the manuals...but if they have a Heavy Plasma Cannon, there must be a light version somewhere! :)

[Edited by WildWeasel on 01-29-2001 at 23:04]
 
Wild Weasel = the use of fighters to take out ground or ship based antiaircraft systems. Often performed by bombers due to the large amount of decoys, EW equipment, and most importantly antiradiation missiles that these things can carry.

Quarto: I wasnt citing just the damage that could be dealt. An efficient fighter with a pair of particles will always beat the same fighter with a pair of MDs. There should be a greater energy drain with particles IIRC, and the fact that you have to tail the other person closer through the tight jinks improves you own survivablility because you are moving erratically also, and its harder for them to shoot back when your glued to their tail. =D
The exception to this would be fighting bombers with neutron turrets or even MD turrets - they are simply too powerful to go in and deal with face to face, and nothing can top staying out of range and hitting the less agile ship with particle fire.

Oh, this is severely offtopic but is it an option to put equipment higher than level 3 on the Centurion?
 
Wow. Is that the Air Force definition? I was just interpreting the Prophecy Gold manual.

"...TARCAP (Targeted Combat Air Patrol), wild weasel (air defense suppression), strike..."

Air defense sounds like mobile ships in flight (fighters) defending a more stationary target. Suppressing them would mean destroying them, of course. That sounds like the job of an escort to me. :p

[Edited by WildWeasel on 01-29-2001 at 23:12]
 
Air Defence is usually considered to be fixed missiles IIRC. Barcap and such are aimed to take down enemy fighters.

Thats just as precise as I was able to define Wild Weasel, not an "official" definition.
 
However, BARCAP missions are designed to eliminate blockading fighters, not those defending a carrier or cruiser. You don't blockade your own ships, you defend them. (I am, of course, speaking as far as the Wing Commander universe goes. In this universe, you could be correct.)
 
Originally posted by WildWeasel
You mean a Plasma Gun? That makes more sense. I didn't see anything about a Light Plasma Cannon in the manuals...but if they have a Heavy Plasma Cannon, there must be a light version somewhere!
Click to expand...
Don't you remember the Plasma guns from... let's see.... the T-bolt?:)
 
If I went back and looked at the stats for that ship I'd remember them. The Plasma Cannon is more memorable because Wing Commander III was an earlier game and because of the damage the Plasma Cannon did. You don't forget a gun that can take down a destroyer in just a few shots. :)
 
Originally posted by Earthworm
Don't you remember the Plasma guns from... let's see.... the T-bolt?:) [/B]
Click to expand...

No, the T-Bolt in SO does not have a plasma guns, if you dont know this go see the CIC page in there you will find that the T-Bolt does have 4 Ion Guns and 2 Tachyon Cannons, the WC IV T-Bolt does have 4 Plasma Guns and 2 Photon Cannons and finally the WC III T-Bolt have 2 Plasma Guns, 2 Photon Cannons and 2 Meson Guns.
And since the Plasma guns is the only figther mounted that can damage CapShips in WC P....and the T-Bolt does not have one.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top