New Ships....

Zor Prime

That guy.
I don't know what kind of response this will get, but I'm interested enough to see.

If you were hired to create a new ship for a wing commander game, (any game) what type of ship would you make? what weapons would you put on it. how manueverable would it be? what generation technology would you use? and, if you do post to this, be sensible. Don't say, "unlimited ammo, invincible", thats dumb.

so, what would you make?
 

iCe

Vice Admiral
The perfect fighter would be as agile as an pirahne, has the speed of a wasp, and the destruction power of a dragon.

So it carries 2 Tachyon and Plasma guns, to keep it's speed it will have not much missiles on board. Say 4 Imrec's, 2 Heat seekers and soms FOF's for the close battle's. Say it has the shields of an tigershard, and the armor of an wasp.

Good enough i guess ?
 

RFBurns

Spaceman
Ship design

A ship with Vampire manuverability, 4 gun mounts, 2 loaded with tachyons and the other 2 with plasma. 6 IMREC missles and 4 FF missles. Max speed of 600kps with acceleration equal to the current Vampire. Definately a power plant capable of providing the afterburner fuel with an afterburn speed of 1700kps. Armor should be slightly higher than a Vampire with shields also slightly higher than the standard Vampire. Size of craft would be about the same. As to extra goodies, cloaking, jamming radar, tractor beam, and a small cargo space to pick up an ejected pilot. Available in your choice of markings and hull colors. For military purposes, everything above except a 30 percent increase in hull and shield strengths as well as extra charging capacity for guns and afterburner. Guns for the military version would consist of Dust Cannons and Cloud Bursts, 8 IMREC missles and 6 FF missles. The military unit would also have extra capacity for 4 dumbfire missles. The cargo space would be omitted as well as the tractor beam.

RFBurns

"Bring me a ship as clean as you did last time and I will show you what ol Pliars can do!" [R. Sykes {Pliars} WCIV]
 

TyeDyeBoy

Spaceman
the thing is, iCe, that you wouldn't be able to create that perfect fighter. The powerful weapons would just be too heavy, or too slow, etc. That's why they haven't already created one.

I'd have to say that the Excal is close to my ideal fighter (at least in the WC3/4 time/technology). It's got strong firepower, good maneuverability, fair speed. Other things are better in some circumstances: the Arrow is better as a general interceptor, or a Longbow for heavy bombing runs, but the Excal has the right blend that I like in a fighter.
 

Antman

Spaceman
If I were to design a fighter, it would have unlimited ammo, invincible, etc.. just kidding. It am designing a diagram of one.
 

pendell

Spaceman
Well, I would design a fighter for the Prophecy era:

1. M/AM drive, for unlimited afterburn.
2. Space for *LOTS* of decoys. Preferably some inherent
ECM that would make it difficult to track even without
decoys. Perhaps a towed decoy as well.
3. 4 Tachyon cannons for weaponry (reliable, powerful,
technology well-understood). This would give the ship
quite a powerful punch against corvettes and below.
4. Supplemental weaponry: 2 light plasma weapons similar
to the ones used by the Nephilem. This would give us
a light weapon for use against maneuverable craft
and also give us a weapon that could penetrate phase
shielding.
5. Missile armament: At least 8 swarmers, preferably
an improved fire-and-forget model that can be fired
at longer range.
6. Secondary missile armament: IMRECs. Lots.
7. Best Shields money can buy.
8. SPEED! At least 1700 on afterburn, full military
of 600, and cruise of 400.
9. As much maneuverability as we can pack into the vessel
without compromising the above. With its heavy
armament, it will have a great deal of inertia, but
tricks such as vectored thrust can compensate for that
to some degree.
10. As much armor as we can get without compromising
maneuverability (not much, but I hope to depend
primarily on the shields).

Wish list:
1. Phase shields. If we can miniaturize M/AM drives,
how about phase shields as well? We would then be
invulnerable to anyone not carrying a plasma, antimatter
or Heavy Particle gun.

2. Cloaking device. Apparently the cloaks of WC4 time
frame are no longer effective. Be nice to get 'em
back.

3. Cloaked missiles (i.e. a "Skipper" IR -- let's see
'em dodge THAT).

4. Jamming field. Remember the jamming missions from
WC4? Wouldn't it be nice if, just before engaging the
bad guys, you could drop a mine that would begin
broadcasting a field like the one broadcast in WC4? It
would not, of course, affect our own fighters. But
all the bad guys just went blind and their missiles don't
work anymore. Their shields dropped, too. So what
if there ain't no honor in pokin' someone in the eye --
it's effective :).


Respectfully,

Brian P.
 

Antman

Spaceman
My ship would be based on addons. The standard would be 2 Kraven MKII lasers, 1 Ion Cannon, and a Kraven MKVII engine. The addons would add:

M/AM DRIVE ADDON

MISSILE ADDON:
4 Missile Hardpoints
1 Afterburner MKIV

TORPEDO ADDON
1 Torpedo Bay
1 Kraven MKVII engine

With all of then it has 2 Kravens, 1 Ion, 4 missile hardpoints, 1 torpedo launcher, 1 afterburner, 1 M/AM Drive, 2 Kraven Engines
 

Dragon

Spaceman
I belive that the WC IV Dragon Heavy Fighter was the closest thing to a "perfect" fighter that can be make.
A WC P technology upgrade for the Dragon would make that ship a nighmare fighter.
 

Iceberg

Spaceman
Originally posted by Dragon
I belive that the WC IV Dragon Heavy Fighter was the closest thing to a "perfect" fighter that can be make.
A WC P technology upgrade for the Dragon would make that ship a nighmare fighter.

The Dragon isn't agile enough to be a "perfect" fighter - it's barely got the same YPR as a Hellcat. The Excalibur was better; the Bearcat is MUCH more my speed (I prefer to dazzle the enemy by running circles around them, and the Bearcat has more than enough shielding to take whatever stray hits it doesn't out-turn).
 

Dragon

Spaceman
I said "closest" thing to a perfect fighter that can be make, any fighter that have a anti-matter engine that gives unlimited afterburner will be too big to be as agile as a light fighter because of the mass of the fighter.
I am being realistic in here, a perfect fighter would could cloak and fire at the same time, have unlimited afterburner, 20 plasma guns without any recharging delay, and 2000000 shields and armor,100000 of speed and 600/600/600 of YPR but its not realistic.
And the Bearcat have the WORST weapons location of any ConFed, too close to the enemy and those guns could not hit it.
 

Earthworm

Spaceman
Originally posted by Dragon
any fighter that have a anti-matter engine that gives unlimited afterburner will be too big to be as agile as a light fighter because of the mass of the fighter.
The Excal has a matter/antimatter drive, and somehow it's more manuverable and smaller (which is another thing that would keep the Dragon from being perfect, it's just to damn big, so that it's easy to hit. Although a rear turret could help with that problem) than the Dragon/Lance. True, it doesn't have unlimited AB's, but I'm sure it could have them.
And the Bearcat have the WORST weapons location of any ConFed, too close to the enemy and those guns could not hit it.
The autotracking makes up for that in most cases though, and its speed and agility are amazing.:)
 

Dragon

Spaceman
I just need to say something about the Dragon fighter and EW show up...
The Excalibur anti-matter engine smaller because it does not have the same abiltyes that the one on the Dragon fighter have.
Its something with the intakes that gives the Dragon engine that extreme long range (and the infinite afterburner) if you put those on the Excalibur, the Excalibur agility and speed will suffer from the added mass to the ship.
And yes I know about the auto traking of the Bearcat, but at very close range, it always a miss , if those weapons were on the same location as in the Arrow it would be far better.
Besides the Dragon have twice the armor and almost twice the shields and its almost as ninble as a Bearcat (Bearcat 90/80/90, 1400 kps vr Dragon 60/75/60, 1200kps) and a little less that the Excalibur (70/75/70, 1300 kps).
The Dragon mass is 26 metric tonnes and the Excalibur 18 metric tonnes.

And I gess that I am in your kill list since I call the Dragon the Dragon as it on the game, not like you that call the Dragon "lance" (were in the heck did you get that).


[Edited by Dragon on 02-15-2001 at 21:32]
 

TyeDyeBoy

Spaceman
The Dragon, methinks, is large because of those fission cannons. Those puppies are fun, but sacrificeable for better speed, etc.

By the way, he asked what kind of ships you'd create, not to create the perfect fighter. A perfect fighter would do very little fighting: lets say it had a massive supply of flashpacks that could be used on anything bigger than a Longbow, dozens of IR missiles and a pair of fission cannons with so much juice that they'd never run out despite constant firing, plus twice the speed and agility of an arrow in a tiny package. It's not gonna happen.

Anyway. I only mention that because frankly I'm not interested in perfect fighters, I'd like to know what you'd create. Go for style, not just ability.
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
My choice fighter follows the same basic design path of a Dragon simply becuase that is my fighting style here it is:
Lightning class heavy fighter:
M/AM drive a la the dragon
Cloaking device that works as well as that on the dragon during WCIV time.
2 Tachyon Guns
2 Dust Cannons
Alternate Weapons (ie H key weapons)
Fission Cannon or twin light plasma capable of penetating phase shielding.

Missiles
8 mounts for either IMREC, FF, HS, of DF
2 Mosquito RP
2 Valiant Enhanced Lt. Torpedo Mounts.

Shielding:
600cm all round (better than the Connie on a fighter only 16 years later, funny huh?)
armor 350cm all round
Pitch Yaw Roll
90/80/90

Speed: 575 normal
1475 afterburner
Decoys 24-30


This is just almost a modernization of the Dragon since it contains the same number of missile and gun mounts. Armor, shields and mauneuverability have been upgraded.
 

Earthworm

Spaceman
Originally posted by Dragon
I just need to say something about the Dragon fighter and EW show up...
No, it's enough that you say something that is wrong.:)
The Excalibur anti-matter engine smaller because it does not have the same abiltyes that the one on the Dragon fighter have.
But I doubt that it's so much different, especially since the Excal was a "prototype" for the Dragon.
Its something with the intakes that gives the Dragon engine that extreme long range (and the infinite afterburner) if you put those on the Excalibur, the Excalibur agility and speed will suffer from the added mass to the ship.
And how would you know that? I don't belive that the reason for Dragons capabilities are ever dedcribed as being solely conected to those intakes.
And yes I know about the auto traking of the Bearcat, but at very close range, it always a miss , if those weapons were on the same location as in the Arrow it would be far better.
Or maybe you just suck and always miss?:)
its almost as ninble as a Bearcat (Bearcat 90/80/90, 1400 kps vr Dragon 60/75/60, 1200kps)
How are those stats almost like the ones on the 'cat? Bearcats agility is definetly superior.


And I gess that I am in your kill list since I call the Dragon the Dragon as it on the game, not like you that call the Dragon "lance" (were in the heck did you get that).
The Lance came from the WC4 novel, and would appear to be the real name (at least to me), while the Dragon is simply a codename given by the BW, because one of the Lance squadrons which was on the Princeton, was called Dragon.
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
EW: You have repeated stated that when the novels and the games diverge we should take the game's pov, as such then the correct name is the Dragon fighter as given in the ship loadout screen as well as whenever you target one it says Dragon not Lance. Lance is short for black lance so that is like calling a ship the Confed or the Union.
 

Earthworm

Spaceman
Originally posted by Napoleon
You have repeated stated that when the novels and the games diverge we should take the game's pov, as such then the correct name is the Dragon fighter as given in the ship loadout screen as well as whenever you target one it says Dragon not Lance.
Except in this case, the two don't really diverge. The game never really sugests that the fighter is indeed called a Dragon. And by that I mean that no one from the Project or such ever calles it a Dragon IIRC. And after capturing the Princeton the UBW just codenamed the ship as Dragon after the Dragon squadron onboad. IMO, calling that ship a Dragon is like saying that Nephilim is anything more than a codename given to the bugs.

Lance is short for black lance so that is like calling a ship the Confed or the Union.
Blck Lance would also be a codename for the Project, given after the Black Lance forcess, which are pilots who fly the Black Lances.
 

Dragon

Spaceman
Thanks Napoleon, Like I said, EW show up whatever the Dragon fighter show up in a tread.
I have not read the novel (besides the part that cames with the game) but the Game call that ship Dragon.
And EW, you state that the anti-matter engines of both the Dragon and the excalibur are the same, no they are not.
The Intakes are the red glowing things in the Dragon, they collect the fuel for the engine, that gives the infinite afterburner.
And the Bearcat is not really Bearcat, BW just decided to call it Bearcat.

[Edited by Dragon on 02-15-2001 at 22:03]
 

Earthworm

Spaceman
Originally posted by Dragon
Like I said, EW show up whatever the Dragon fighter show up in a tread.
Wow, that's highly amusing.
but the Game call that ship Dragon.
That can be very much argued.
And EW, you state that the anti-matter engines of both the Dragon and the excalibur are the same, no they are not.
Um, no I don't. I said they are most likelly very similar, and as such, their size should be similar.
The Intakes are the red glowing things in the Dragon, they collect the fuel for the engine, that gives the infinite afterburner.
I know what intakes you're talking about, I just don't know where you've found any info about them suplying fuel for the AB's. Technicly there is no seperate fuel for your standard engines and AB's, there's just one "fuel tank" and the fuel it gets is from the fuel scoops.
 

Dragon

Spaceman
Sure EW...
Sorry, I am quite sure that you dislike the Dragon fighter for some reason, likely its because it is a too powerful fighter for WC IV time.
I am not going to belive you until you provide prove, since you neither have done that or , as I belive, have any what you are saying is speculation.
You just dont like to be prove wrong, so you start to make statements without proves are hope that we "buy it", well I dont.
Some time ago, I said that the TCS Eisen was a Vesuvius class carrier, that was a lot of posting trying to prove me wrong, a few time ago LOAF said the same thing and he proved that the Eisen was a Vesuvius, so I was right about the Eisen all along. I also can be, until proved wrong (with solid prove), right about the Dragon.
That is what I stick by.
Also Dragon is on all sites that talk about fighters not Lance.

[Edited by Dragon on 02-15-2001 at 22:18]
 
Top