Of Epees and Broadswords...

Farbourne

Rear Admiral
I just got my old copy of Kilrathi Saga working again, and I'm playing through it again. Good times. But now I'm remembering something that always struck me when I used to play through WC2 and I was wondering if it had struck other people...

Does anyone else think that the Epee and the Broadsword should switch their guns?

The Epee is a lightweight, highly-maneuverable fighter with very thin armor. As such, an Epee pilot should avoid head-on slugging matches whenever possible, use his speed and maneuverability to close quickly while evading enemy fire, get around on his opponent's tail, and take him down. Since the Epee is a dogfighter, a great deal of range is not vital in a weapon, but a high refire rate is, especially because the Epee is so maneuverabe that gunnery is more difficult than in a larger, more stable platform. And yet the Epee is armed with a pair of extremely long range, slow firing particle cannons that appeal to the marksman more than the dogfighter...

The Broadsword, on the other hand, really can't dogfight very well because of its poor maneuverability and slow speed. It's lack of afterburners pretty much means that it has to engage in head-on slugging matches since it can't evade enemy fire very well. Fortunately, it's heavy shields and strong armor make head on attacks safer. However, for head on attacks, you really want a long rang weapon that does a lot of damage--in other words, a particle cannon. High refire rate is nice, but not as vital in a craft that is not intended to dogfight. And yet the Broadsword, which is naturally a marksman's platform rather than a dogfighter, is armed with fast firing but short range mass drivers ideal for dogfighting... The Crossbow is even worse, as it adds even shorter range neutron guns. If you're lucky, you'll get one shot off in a head on pass between when the enemy comes into range and when you shoot past him (two if you cut your own speed to zero).

I always thought that the Confed ship designers got it backwards. When dogfighting in light fighters, I much perferred the mass drivers of the Ferret to the particle cannons of the Epee, and when pounding the snot out of Kilrathi in a bomber I wished many times for a longer range weapon like a laser or a particle cannon (in other words, a Jalkehi's armament). Would it really have been that hard for Confed engineers to retrofit particle cannons on bombers, especially on the new Crossbows?

Or do other people fly these fighters with very different styles and like the way the weapons are set up?
 
Actually I like it how the broadsword was setup in WC2. Head on charge through a mass of small fighters (or big ones for that matter) and all the ones that don't die in the first pass get chewed up by my gunners. Is one of my favorite tactics.
 
I just plain didn't like the Epee. I agree with you that the particle cannon was the wrong choice for the Epee and Morningstar. Mass drivers would have been a definite improvement, I can't get enough of them.
 
The Epee needs the range of the particle cannons to snipe from a very safe distance, so it doesn't get its paper armor singed.
 
indeed! The broadsword is great the way it is. 3 turrents, 4 friend or foes, four torps and the 3 lovin mass drivers? heck give it 4 mace missiles and see what overkill really is! I can dream cant I?
 
I just plain didn't like the Epee. I agree with you that the particle cannon was the wrong choice for the Epee and Morningstar. Mass drivers would have been a definite improvement, I can't get enough of them.
I love the Epee and Morningstar. Those guns are perfect for fine pilots who don't just face the enemy and charge, but rather aim, shoot and evade.
 
I always thought that the Confed ship designers got it backwards. When dogfighting in light fighters, I much perferred the mass drivers of the Ferret to the particle cannons of the Epee, and when pounding the snot out of Kilrathi in a bomber I wished many times for a longer range weapon like a laser or a particle cannon (in other words, a Jalkehi's armament). Would it really have been that hard for Confed engineers to retrofit particle cannons on bombers, especially on the new Crossbows?

Or do other people fly these fighters with very different styles and like the way the weapons are set up?

I think the thought is that bombers aren't supposed to really have to deal with fighters ideally. The Mass Drivers (plus Neutrons on Crossbow) are amazing at taking out light capital ships though. And because of their damage throughput and medium range, they're still decent enough to take out fighters head-on.

The neutron gun is back on two of the three Broadsword variants in Arena, and if you start to think of the roles you might need, a medium-range/high-power gun combo is probably pretty useful. Leave the marksman's guns to ships that can maneuver and take advantage of them (and escort your Broadsword).
 
I just plain didn't like the Epee. I agree with you that the particle cannon was the wrong choice for the Epee and Morningstar. Mass drivers would have been a definite improvement, I can't get enough of them.

If they did that then both Confed light fighters you flew in the game would have the same guns and there would be no point in having two confed light fighter models in the game.
 
The Epee needs the range of the particle cannons to snipe from a very safe distance, so it doesn't get its paper armor singed.

I agree. The long range of particle cannons means that you can stay outside of the range of enemy bomber turrets, and out of the range of a Sathra's main guns as well. When dogfighting Sathras, being able to keep away from their guns is VERY valuable when you have such light protection.

The Broadsword's Achilles heel would be Drakhris, if the A.I. were any good at using their advantages. With three lasers, they can shoot the Broadsword from outside of counterattack range and unlike Jalkethi are nimble enough to STAY out of counterattack range.
 
I love the Epee and Morningstar. Those guns are perfect for fine pilots who don't just face the enemy and charge, but rather aim, shoot and evade.
Indeed, I started with Priv 1st then to WC series so I had time to learn about aiming quad weapon salvos. The trick is to aim in front not spray and pray.
 
If they did that then both Confed light fighters you flew in the game would have the same guns and there would be no point in having two confed light fighter models in the game.

Well, Ferrets didn't carry missiles, so there is a pretty big difference. I get your point, though, and yeah, it would be odd that they would have similar guns.
 
To clarify, I really liked the Broadsword, and the Crossbow even more. The refire rate combined with the damage of the triple mass drivers allows one to shred light fighters head on.

But as Ijuin pointed out, things get problemmatic when the Broadsword faces craft with longer range weapons, since they can damage you in a head on pass, evade your fire, and be out of gun range again by the time you've pulled your nose around to face them. Remember, the total damage a ship can do in a pass is equal to the damage per shot times the refire rate times the time the enemy is in range, which is directly related to the range of the weapon. So you can get high damage either with a high refire rate OR a long range. And while the Broadsword is a great ship, I maintain that it would have been even better, and more versatile, if it achieved its high damage potential through longer range weapons rather than fast firing weapons.

Someone commented that the Broadsword is not really meant to fight fighters without a fighter escort (despite the fact that we are required to do so in the game many times...even against ferrets from the Gettysburg!), but if you gave it longer range weapons instead of faster firing weapons, then it would have a better chance to do so. This would make it more versatile a weapon in the Confed arsenal.
 
The Epee needs the range of the particle cannons to snipe from a very safe distance, so it doesn't get its paper armor singed.

That's a difference in flying style, and perferred maneuvers, I guess. I always relied on defensive maneuvering rather than range to keep my paper armor whole. Maybe my joystick was too sensitive, or my CPU too fast, but I always had a hard time sniping from a distance in the very maneuverable fighters such as the Epee. (It was much easier in a less maneuverable, more stable platfrom like a bomber, which is why I always wished the bombers' weapons had more range)

On the other hand, I had a pretty good technique for safely taking down turreted ships in a light maneuverable fighter from close in--rather than parking on it's tail and getting chewed up, I'd weave behind in a "scissors" maneuver--aim 45° above or below the target (or to the left or right), tap the burners, and then as my inertia carried me past it, I'd reverse my course, take a couple of shots as my nose swung past the bandit, tap my burners again, and repeat until he was dead. The approach worked great--Grikath turrets could never hit me while I was doing this, I got lots of shots at them, and at the same time I was maneuvering hard enough continuously to keep bandits off my own six. However, the particle cannon was just the wrong weapon for this maneuver--it's range added nothing while doing this, and it's slow refire rate meant that I needed to carefully aim every shot to make it count--which is tough to do when you scissoring around... Which is why I perferred the Ferret, because you could just spray mass driver bullets as you swung past, although its lack of missiles was kind of a pain...

I guess if I was a WC4 pilot, the game would rate my flying as "Good" to "Excellent" but my gunnery as "Average" to "Poor", at least when flying a light fighter... :)


It's a good point, though, about how if the Epee had had the same weapons as the ferret, there would have been no point in having both in the game. Of course, I kind of thought the Epee had no point in the game, anyway, given my stated prefernce for the Ferret...

I actually liked the particles on the Morningstar. The Morningstar couldn't have had anything but--it needed long range guns to touch off its Mace (remember, the WC2 Mace didn't have a remote detonator--you had to fire it and then shoot it--never mind that that's not actually an effective way of touching off a real nuke...) But I flew the Morningstar more like a heavy fighter than a light fighter, so having long range, powerful, slow firing guns was just right to me...
 
I actually liked the particles on the Morningstar. The Morningstar couldn't have had anything but--it needed long range guns to touch off its Mace (remember, the WC2 Mace didn't have a remote detonator--you had to fire it and then shoot it

You didn't have to shoot it. It would detonate on contact with something as well. It does get the remote trigger in WC4.

Well, Ferrets didn't carry missiles, so there is a pretty big difference. I get your point, though, and yeah, it would be odd that they would have similar guns.

Some versions of the Ferret didn't carry missiles. With two Heatseekers, its ordnance loadout is comparable to the WC2 Epee.
 
You didn't have to shoot it. It would detonate on contact with something as well. It does get the remote trigger in WC4.

Although why they couldn't have mounted a little WWII era technology called a "proximity fuse" on the thing was always beyond me. I mean, come on, even porcupine mines have them. The detonation on contact was fine if you were using it to take out a corvette or a transport, but if you wanted to take out a squadron of enemy fighters, you had to try to time shooting it (or activating the remote trigger in WC4, which was only marginally easier) with whenever it was in the center of their formation.

For that matter, I wonder why no one ever tried combining a porcupine mine detonator with a mace warhead, to make thermonuclear minefields, John J. Sheridan style. Park one or two of those things near a jump bouy that you expect the enemy fleet to come through, and you've just made a pretty significant weapon against an unsuspecting fleet. It's not a question of did they have the technology--we KNOW that the mace could take out ships, and we KNOW that mining a jump point with conventional mines was done sometimes. Why not use nuclear mines?
 
I suspect that there is an unspoken agreement between Confed and the Kilrathi not to use nukes against civilian targets, so nuke mining a place where civilian transports would likely be coming through would be a big no-no.
 
I suspect that there is an unspoken agreement between Confed and the Kilrathi not to use nukes against civilian targets, so nuke mining a place where civilian transports would likely be coming through would be a big no-no.

I doubt it, the kilrathi are shown to have no compunction about killing civilians. The Iason, Goddard, Locanda, I doubt the kilrathi would impose limits on the way they wage war.
 
Back
Top