Reply to this message with new WC ideas

Chip

Spaceman
Could you all list your ideas for new WC games as replies to this message? I've got some ideas:

1. Point defense scatter lasers to shoot down missiles.
2. Torpedoes with gum like warheads -- they stick onto the targeted unit to reduce the ability of guns in the location hit to effectively train on its target and it blinds visual targeting systems.
3. Gigantic screens to block LOS
4. Cloakable missiles
5. That space drive I posted earlier that's totally self contained and runs off the fighter's power plant.
6. Guns that shoot armor piercing shells
7. TAGger drones -- they're super fast drones designed to TAG a unit with its targeting system to direct semiguided missiles
8. Cloaking devices for all spacecraft/spacestations
9. The ability to custom design your own spacecraft/spacestation
10. The ability to salvage enemy spacecraft/spacestations for use.
11. Micromecha drones to land inside a spacecraft/spacestation to destroy its circuitry.
12. Catapults -- to launch shutdown fighters so they're less detectable on their approach.
13. Non-lethal ballistic & chemical weapons to subdue enemy crews.
14. IFF attachable missiles (these IFFs attach themselves to the target and broadcast an enemy IFF signal so it makes the target appear to be an enemy).
15. Smoke screens to block LOS to Marines
16. Hologram projectors of various sizes
17. Decoys that look like units.
18. ECM pods to prevent IFF signals from reaching each other and to reduce the effectiveness of targeting computers.
19. The ability to have ships fly in various formations by autopilot and the ability for them to merge together.
 
Originally posted by Chip
1. Point defense scatter lasers to shoot down missiles.
That's what the standard turrets are for... They're just not good at it.

4. Cloakable missiles
And may I ask, who would waste money on puting cloaks in missiles, and whre would you fit the cloaking mechanism on a 1.5/2m long missile?

6. Guns that shoot armor piercing shells
And isn't that what SF and MD's are for?

7. TAGger drones -- they're super fast drones designed to TAG a unit with its targeting system to direct semiguided missiles
There already are missiles for that, no need for any drones.
8. Cloaking devices for all spacecraft/spacestations
Way to expensive, especially for capitalships and stations. Plus, cloaking is useless these days...
9. The ability to custom design your own spacecraft/spacestation
In a Privateer like game
10. The ability to salvage enemy spacecraft/spacestations for use.
Look at number 9...

12. Catapults -- to launch shutdown fighters so they're less detectable on their approach.
That is already possible in the universe. Would be hard to implement in a game.

14. IFF attachable missiles (these IFFs attach themselves to the target and broadcast an enemy IFF signal so it makes the target appear to be an enemy).
Don't you think that your enemy would see that they're shooting at their own ships?
 
RE: To Earthworm's message below

That's what the standard turrets are for... They're just not good at it.

CB: Exactly, which is why we need dozens of multi-barreled pulse laser guns in a fast rotating turret (the sizes of these laser guns would be like the sizes of hand-held laser pistols for convenience).


And may I ask, who would waste money on puting cloaks in missiles, and whre would you fit the cloaking mechanism on a 1.5/2m long missile?

CB: I'll find an area for the cloaking mechanism, else I'll build a bigger missile or reduce the explosive payload. We could have a cloakable flashpack as well.

And isn't that what SF and MD's are for?

CB: Never heard of them.

There already are missiles for that, no need for any drones.

CB: Those missiles require the fighter to have LOS to the target (which can expose the fighter to return fire). Using drones negates the problem of return fire.

Way to expensive, especially for capitalships and stations. Plus, cloaking is useless these days...

CB: Oh, I don't know, I mean, if you've got a ship like Intrepid and Seether is around in his Black Lance, I don't you'd think cloaking is so useless.


That is already possible in the universe. Would be hard to implement in a game.

CB: Not really, the speed of the fighter being launched could be set by the flight deck officer controlling the catapult.

Don't you think that your enemy would see that they're shooting at their own ships?

CB: Only if the enemy had LOS to another enemy. Let's say Foe A fires an IFF at me. I shoot a CIFF (Counter IFF missile) at Foe B and the CIFF hits Foe B. I move my fighter real close towards Foe B and a little past it and disengage my IFFs or tune them to the same signal as Foe A. Foe B has that CIFF emitting my IFF signal, so Foe A's IFF should home in on that signal instead of me.
 
Originally posted by Chip
1. Point defense scatter lasers to shoot down missiles.
They are called turrents.
2. Torpedoes with gum like warheads -- they stick onto the targeted unit to reduce the ability of guns in the location hit to effectively train on its target and it blinds visual targeting systems.
3. Gigantic screens to block LOS
?
4. Cloakable missiles
They are called Skipper Capital Ship Missles, the Kilrathi have them.
5. That space drive I posted earlier that's totally self contained and runs off the fighter's power plant.
don't we have that sort of system in the Black Lance [Dragon] fighter?
6. Guns that shoot armor piercing shells
7. TAGger drones -- they're super fast drones designed to TAG a unit with its targeting system to direct semiguided missiles
8. Cloaking devices for all spacecraft/spacestations
9. The ability to custom design your own spacecraft/spacestation
10. The ability to salvage enemy spacecraft/spacestations for use.
EW said it better than I could.
11. Micromecha drones to land inside a spacecraft/spacestation to destroy its circuitry.
Why? The leech cannons and mussles do this job nicely already.
12. Catapults -- to launch shutdown fighters so they're less detectable on their approach.
They already exist in the universe. (games as well i,e, Prophecy)
13. Non-lethal ballistic & chemical weapons to subdue enemy crews.
Why?
14. IFF attachable missiles (these IFFs attach themselves to the target and broadcast an enemy IFF signal so it makes the target appear to be an enemy).
WC IS NOT THE GUNDAM UNIVERSE!!! WC does not have any mobile dolls or fighter dolls!!
15. Smoke screens to block LOS to Marines
WC isn't the Dragon Ball Universe either. What the hell are you trying to create?
16. Hologram projectors of various sizes
They already exist
17. Decoys that look like units.
Why?
18. ECM pods to prevent IFF signals from reaching each other and to reduce the effectiveness of targeting computers.
These exist too, but there are some WC targeting computers they don't use IFF.
19. The ability to have ships fly in various formations by autopilot and the ability for them to merge together.
What? What in all of time, space, and evil crossovers, are you trying to create? Where did you get this idea? Power Rangers? Transformers? Voltron?...

[Edited by Meson on 12-22-2000 at 02:06]
 
Meson, I think what Chip means is that the "gum warheads" literally gum up turrents. Think of sticking something down the barrel of a gun. Don't see the point. If you're going to shoo a missle at a turret, may as well destroy it.
 
Re: RE: To Earthworm's message below

Originally posted by Chip
CB: Exactly, which is why we need dozens of multi-barreled pulse laser guns in a fast rotating turret (the sizes of these laser guns would be like the sizes of hand-held laser pistols for convenience).
No, that's why we need OSI to give us better AI.


CB: I'll find an area for the cloaking mechanism, else I'll build a bigger missile or reduce the explosive payload. We could have a cloakable flashpack as well.
First, you're missing the main reason. It would be just to damn expensive to place a cloaking device on a missile used against fighters. And you can't just go and make the missiles bigger, that would be stupid. And finally, Flash Packs aren't usefull anymore...

And isn't that what SF and MD's are for?

CB: Never heard of them.
You never heard of Mass Drivers or Stormfires?

CB: Those missiles require the fighter to have LOS to the target (which can expose the fighter to return fire). Using drones negates the problem of return fire.
LOS? Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot?


CB: Oh, I don't know, I mean, if you've got a ship like Intrepid and Seether is around in his Black Lance, I don't you'd think cloaking is so useless.
You can detect cloaking these days, and you could for a long time.


CB: Not really, the speed of the fighter being launched could be set by the flight deck officer controlling the catapult.
What the hell does speed have to do with it?


Let's say Foe A fires an IFF at me. I shoot a CIFF (Counter IFF missile) at Foe B and the CIFF hits Foe B. I move my fighter real close towards Foe B and a little past it and disengage my IFFs or tune them to the same signal as Foe A. Foe B has that CIFF emitting my IFF signal, so Foe A's IFF should home in on that signal instead of me.
So you basicly want the missile the enemy launched at you, to hit your other enemy?

What's the point? If you have to fire that CIFF at it, why not just fire a normal missile that'll destroy it imedietly?
 
No, that's why we need OSI to give us better AI.

CB: What's AI? And is there a Wing Commander Acronym webpage?

First, you're missing the main reason. It would be just to damn expensive to place a cloaking device on a missile used against fighters. And you can't just go and make the missiles bigger, that would be stupid. And finally, Flash Packs aren't usefull anymore...

CB: It believe it would be less expensive for a cloaking device to be put on a missile than to replace fighters that get shot up firing normal missiles.


You never heard of Mass Drivers or Stormfires?

CB: I've heard of them, I just never experienced them doing any armor piercing

LOS? Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot?

CB: LOS -- Line of Sight

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CB: Oh, I don't know, I mean, if you've got a ship like Intrepid and Seether is around in his Black Lance, I don't you'd think cloaking is so useless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can detect cloaking these days, and you could for a long time.

CB: That doesn't make much sense since in the WCA series, they could not have detected that prototype Stranka Stealth Fighter. What cloaking does, is it makes a unit invisible to visual detection. I'm talking about full covert equipment -- like Radar Absorbent Material to prevent radar detection and Cloaking to prevent visual detection


What the hell does speed have to do with it?

CB: The catapult determines the initial speed of the fighter when it launches.


So you basicly want the missile the enemy launched at you, to hit your other enemy? What's the point? If you have to fire that CIFF at it, why not just fire a normal missile that'll destroy it imedietly?

CB: Because "a" normal missile might not have enough firepower to destroy Foe B, but multiple missiles from Foe A might. Let's say Foe A simultaneously fired 4 missiles at me. Those 4 try to hit my fighter but all them fail (just like the single missile did). Then the 4 go after Foe B. As you can see, I took out 1 fighter using 5 missiles for the price of 1.

Meson, I think what Chip means is that the "gum warheads" literally gum up turrents. Think of sticking something down the barrel of a gun. Don't see the point. If you're going to shoo a missle at a turret, may as well destroy it.

They are called turrents.

CB: The point of gumming up the turrets is to jam their rotating ability. This way the turrets can't rotate to bring guns to engage targets. This way they're kept stuck, and since the gum doesn't damage the turrets, they're kept intact for salvage.
And yes, I'd like more missions to be more like "save the Ralari" than "destroy the Ralari".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Torpedoes with gum like warheads -- they stick onto the targeted unit to reduce the ability of guns in the location hit to effectively train on its target and it blinds visual targeting systems.
3. Gigantic screens to block LOS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Gigantic screens are about 1 kilometer by 1 kilometer or larger or smaller. They're to prevent LOS from foes to friends. The idea is to have scout drones on the same side as the screen as the foes sending information on foes' positions. Then, friendly ships behind the screen shoot through the screen.

5. That space drive I posted earlier that's totally self contained and runs off the fighter's power plant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

don't we have that sort of system in the Black Lance [Dragon] fighter?

CB: I'm not certain. I keep thinking that my Black Lance did have a limited fuel supply. The drive I'm talking about is totally self-contained and just needs an electric power plant. A friend of mine sold me a working model of such a drive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Micromecha drones to land inside a spacecraft/spacestation to destroy its circuitry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? The leech cannons and mussles do this job nicely already.

CB: That's true, but you have to be uncloaked to fire. Unless you'd prefer that we change the rules to let someone fire while cloaked. And that's why I don't understand why the guns would be prohibited from firing while a fighter is cloaked. If you think about it, those fuel expending fighters are sort of like guns -- the fuel gets shot out just like bullets/lasers.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Catapults -- to launch shutdown fighters so they're less detectable on their approach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They already exist in the universe. (games as well i,e, Prophecy)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Non-lethal ballistic & chemical weapons to subdue enemy crews.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why?

CB: Why would a player want to board a ship when its crew hasn't been subdued yet.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. IFF attachable missiles (these IFFs attach themselves to the target and broadcast an enemy IFF signal so it makes the target appear to be an enemy).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WC IS NOT THE GUNDAM UNIVERSE!!! WC does not have any mobile dolls or fighter dolls!!

CB: I never said the CIFFs (the IFFs that attach themselves) are dolls. The CIFFs could attach themselves like magnetic mines/flashpacks.

15. Smoke screens to block LOS to Marines

WC isn't the Dragon Ball Universe either. What the hell are you trying to create?

CB: A smoke filled corridor so that defending troops can't see the boarders training their guns on them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Hologram projectors of various sizes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They already exist


CB: I must not've picked up that game.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Decoys that look like units.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why?

CB: So the decoy units draw enemy attention & enemy fire from the real units. The decoys could also act as bait to lure enemy forces into a trap.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. ECM pods to prevent IFF signals from reaching each other and to reduce the effectiveness of targeting computers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These exist too, but there are some WC targeting computers they don't use IFF.

CB: I must not have picked up that game that lets ECM pods be shot out at enemy fighters to latch on so they can't broadcast their IFFs.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The ability to have ships fly in various formations by autopilot and the ability for them to merge together.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What? What in all of time, space, and evil crossovers, are you trying to create? Where did you get this idea? Power Rangers? Transformers? Voltron?...

CB: Ok, let's say your game is multiplayer. The person controlling Blair should be able to use the buttons on the controller to declare a formation for his fighter and the other fighters in his wing to be in. Having fighters in tight formation gives the appearance of a capship (or at least multiple fighter engines in close formation gives the appearance and the fighters could have a shell placed around them shaped like a capship hull). This encourages foe fighters to break formation and swarm over the capship (the tight formationed fighters). When foe fighters break and swarm, they're more vulnerable since they aren't as united. It's the classic divide and conquer scenario. Once the foe fighters are swarming all around, the capship (friendly fighters) can chase one of the foe fighters to eliminate it.
 
Originally posted by Chip
What's AI? And is there a Wing Commander Acronym webpage?
Artificial Inteligence, as in, what you fly against in every WC game...

It believe it would be less expensive for a cloaking device to be put on a missile than to replace fighters that get shot up firing normal missiles.
Whatever, if you don't consider a prety big device that bends the light around an object, therefore making in almost invisible, to be more expensive than reparing a fighter... Why do you think the Kilrathi didn't have more Strakhas then they did? If they used them more often they could have really caused some trouble.


CB: I've heard of them, I just never experienced them doing any armor piercing
What exactly do you mean by armor piercing?

That doesn't make much sense since in the WCA series, they could not have detected that prototype Stranka Stealth Fighter. What cloaking does, is it makes a unit invisible to visual detection. I'm talking about full covert equipment -- like Radar Absorbent Material to prevent radar detection and Cloaking to prevent visual detection
First, the Strakha from Academy didn't cloak, it was just a stealth fighter. Second, Academy series is set in 2653. By 2681 (Prophecy) and even a dozen years before that, you could detect cloaked ships.


The catapult determines the initial speed of the fighter when it launches.
My question was, what does speed have to do with weather the fighter is detected or not...

You can launch fighter under power, with their IFF codes disabeled, like in TPOF where the Intrepid removed the forcefields from the flight deck and just let the fighter flout out, but the speed of the fighter doesn't have much to do with it being detected.


Because "a" normal missile might not have enough firepower to destroy Foe B, but multiple missiles from Foe A might. Let's say Foe A simultaneously fired 4 missiles at me. Those 4 try to hit my fighter but all them fail (just like the single missile did). Then the 4 go after Foe B. As you can see, I took out 1 fighter using 5 missiles for the price of 1.
Eh, anyway. First, what kind of a stupid enemy would waste 4 or 5 missiles on one fighter. Besides, usually a missile will be enough to destroy a ship, that's why your ship has missiles instead of all guns.


The point of gumming up the turrets is to jam their rotating ability. This way the turrets can't rotate to bring guns to engage targets. This way they're kept stuck, and since the gum doesn't damage the turrets, they're kept intact for salvage.
You won't go salvagin enemy capships in combat because it's too dangerous and pointless.


The Gigantic screens are about 1 kilometer by 1 kilometer or larger or smaller. They're to prevent LOS from foes to friends. The idea is to have scout drones on the same side as the screen as the foes sending information on foes' positions. Then, friendly ships behind the screen shoot through the screen.
Why not just build fighter out of glass, so that when you look at them you see stars? The enemy fighter wouldn't detect them......:D

I'm not certain. I keep thinking that my Black Lance did have a limited fuel supply. The drive I'm talking about is totally self-contained and just needs an electric power plant.
The Lance does have a limited fuel supply... Except that it can gather it's own fuel (technicly all fighter can do that, but the Lance gathers it in a different way (it uses it's matter/antimatter plant, while other fighters use the fuel scoops), allowing it to not run out of fuel before it gathers enough hydrogen to keep going).


And that's why I don't understand why the guns would be prohibited from firing while a fighter is cloaked.
You can't fire your guns because cloaking takes up most of your fighters energy. That's also why shields aren't at full strangth when you're cloaked.
quote:



Why would a player want to board a ship when its crew hasn't been subdued yet.
Why would anyone want to board a ship in the first place?



A smoke filled corridor so that defending troops can't see the boarders training their guns on them.
That's what smoke grenades are for...

So the decoy units draw enemy attention & enemy fire from the real units. The decoys could also act as bait to lure enemy forces into a trap.
So you want Confed to build "fake" fighters to protect it's "real" fighters?


I must not have picked up that game that lets ECM pods be shot out at enemy fighters to latch on so they can't broadcast their IFFs.
You must spend too much time with other fictional universes if you think everything is present in each one of them...
 
Man, this thread is just silly...

MD's and SF's pierce the armour just like any other weapon - once the shields have been penetrated. If you can't shoot well enough to penetrate armour with Stormfires, well...
 
RE: To Earthworm's message

MD's and SF's pierce the armour just like any other weapon - once the shields have been penetrated. If you can't shoot well enough to penetrate armour with Stormfires, well...

CB: I've hit ships w/both, but the shots have never penetrated the armor and caused critical damage to structural components, i.e., I'd have to destroy all the armor in the location first before I could destroy the components.


Whatever, if you don't consider a prety big device that bends the light around an object, therefore making in almost invisible, to be more expensive than reparing a fighter... Why do you think the Kilrathi didn't have more Strakhas then they did? If they used them more often they could have really caused some trouble.

CB: Many of the pilots probably weren't capable to pilot them. Kilrathi pilot training, as told in the novels, was not as good as the Terrans. I don't think the Kilrathi Flight Trainers wanted their Strankas crashing into each other.


What exactly do you mean by armor piercing?

CB: As in the MDs and the SFs put holes in the armor and part of the explosive damage goes through that hole to damage structural components behind the armor.


First, the Strakha from Academy didn't cloak, it was just a stealth fighter. Second, Academy series is set in 2653. By 2681 (Prophecy) and even a dozen years before that, you could detect cloaked ships.

CB: I know, but if the Kilrathi were building cloakable fighters, you'd think that they'd merge the stealth tech with the cloak tech.


My question was, what does speed have to do with weather the fighter is detected or not...

CB: It really doesn't. It's just that, a powered down fighter launched by a catapult has very little chance of becoming detected.

You can launch fighter under power, with their IFF codes disabeled, like in TPOF where the Intrepid removed the forcefields from the flight deck and just let the fighter flout out, but the speed of the fighter doesn't have much to do with it being detected.



Eh, anyway. First, what kind of a stupid enemy would waste 4 or 5 missiles on one fighter. Besides, usually a missile will be enough to destroy a ship, that's why your ship has missiles instead of all guns.

CB: Seether to start with would fire 4 to 5 missiles. I don't know of any WC game that only needed one missile to destroy a fighter (unless it was a Leech). I think the Kilrathi did multi-missile firing.


You won't go salvagin enemy capships in combat because it's too dangerous and pointless.

CB: It's only too dangerous if you don't have a sufficient attacking force to overcome the defending force. And you won't get a bigger fleet if you don't capture ships.


Why not just build fighter out of glass, so that when you look at them you see stars? The enemy fighter wouldn't detect them......

CB: I think the enemy fighter could detect the drone recon fighter by its electronic signature (assuming the signature was large enough for detection). Actually, given the recon camera used in WCIV, a missile with a recon camera could replace the drone fighter.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's why I don't understand why the guns would be prohibited from firing while a fighter is cloaked.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can't fire your guns because cloaking takes up most of your fighters energy. That's also why shields aren't at full strangth when you're cloaked.
quote:

CB: That's why the game should be altered to let the shields & engines drop to 0 if necessary so power can be shifted to guns.


Why would anyone want to board a ship in the first place?

CB: To capture the ship of course. A captured ship is a salvaged ship, the crews can be liberated (like that Kilrathi friend of Bondarevsky), technology can be examined, etc.


So you want Confed to build "fake" fighters to protect it's "real" fighters?

CB: In a manner of speaking, yes. I'm sure you'd rather a simple decoy fighter would get destroyed than your fighter.
 
Build Decoy Fleet

Here's something ConFed could've done was to have built a decoy fleet. They could've built alot of decoy capships and moved them in formation to distract the advancing Kilrathi fleet. Then ConFed could've had the real fleet come in from the flanks and rear to attack.
 
Re: RE: To Earthworm's message

Originally posted by Chip
I've hit ships w/both, but the shots have never penetrated the armor and caused critical damage to structural components, i.e., I'd have to destroy all the armor in the location first before I could destroy the components.
That's because SF and MD are light/medium damage weapons at best, so they won't destroy anything too fast. Notice though, that in WC4, the Stormfire is extremly good at destroying capships when the shields are down...


Many of the pilots probably weren't capable to pilot them. Kilrathi pilot training, as told in the novels, was not as good as the Terrans. I don't think the Kilrathi Flight Trainers wanted their Strankas crashing into each other.
Bullshit, the Strakhas aren't any harder to control than normal fighters... You don't see many Strakhas, because there's precious few of them. There's precious few of them because they're expensive as hell.

I know, but if the Kilrathi were building cloakable fighters, you'd think that they'd merge the stealth tech with the cloak tech.
They have, with the Strakhas we see in WC2 and WC3 (as well as the heavier version of Strakhas that are responsible for Claw's destruction).


It really doesn't. It's just that, a powered down fighter launched by a catapult has very little chance of becoming detected.
A fighter with no electronic emisions, and one that doesn't comunicate with anyone, has very little chance of detection. The speed doesn't make any difference.



Seether to start with would fire 4 to 5 missiles. I don't know of any WC game that only needed one missile to destroy a fighter (unless it was a Leech). I think the Kilrathi did multi-missile firing.
He fired 5 missiles because he is an AI. No one in real life would fire that many missiles, they're way to expensive. And one missile is enough in WC4...


It's only too dangerous if you don't have a sufficient attacking force to overcome the defending force.
It's too dangerous because it required more carefull attacks that will leave you vulrneable on other fronts.
And you won't get a bigger fleet if you don't capture ships.
In the history of any country on this planet, have you heard of any country that would try to capture any ship it encountered, so they'd have a larger fleet? You build fleets, you capture resources for that, you don't capture capships. Wedge is right, this thread is silly.

That's why the game should be altered to let the shields & engines drop to 0 if necessary so power can be shifted to guns.
Droping your shields? That's crazy, during a battle a lucky shot could get you imedietly. And if you shut down your engines, there's a chance you won't start them up again.


To capture the ship of course. A captured ship is a salvaged ship, the crews can be liberated
Come on, haven't you been listening? Capturin ships is hard, it's terribly hard. You can't just capture a ship because you feel like it.


(like that Kilrathi friend of Bondarevsky)
What are you talking about. Bear doesn't have any cat friends that have been liberated from a capture ship.


In a manner of speaking, yes. I'm sure you'd rather a simple decoy fighter would get destroyed than your fighter.
And how would you get those fighters into a battle? Even if they are remotely controled, it would be a waste of money that the government would never stand for.



[/B][/QUOTE]
 
You know what I hate the most about this thread? The fact that as moderator, I'm obliged to read the whole damned thing. Because it's really not worth reading. Earthworm, why do you even bother responding?
 
I don't know. I guess I'm just eager to educate.:)

Seriously though, when you have a guy that makes so many wrong assumptions, it's kind of hard to stop.
 
Well... please, stop. For the sake of my (questionable) sanity :). You're just encouraging him.
 
RE: to Quarto

Quarto: You know what I hate the most about this thread? The fact that as moderator, I'm obliged to read the whole damned thing. Because it's really not worth reading. Earthworm, why do you even bother responding?

CB: With a narrow-minded attitude like that, customer's opinions aren't going to be read so no WC game designer is going to know ways to improve WC to make better games to satisfy customers. If customers' opinions aren't heard, they'll get disappointed. When they get disappointed, they'll probably disappoint WC game designers by not purchasing new WC games and so the game designers won't get any money.
 
Origin isn't going to make any WC games in the near future...

So to colect ideas, and some of them, very stupid ideas, would be pointless.

Not to mention that bearly any companies actually listen to sugestions their customers have, because everyone will always want something different, and you can never satisfy them all...
 
RE: To Earthworm's messages below

That's because SF and MD are light/medium damage weapons at best, so they won't destroy anything too fast. Notice though, that in WC4, the Stormfire is extremly good at destroying capships when the shields are down...

CB: Which is why we need heavier weapons.


Bullshit, the Strakhas aren't any harder to control than normal fighters... You don't see many Strakhas, because there's precious few of them. There's precious few of them because they're expensive as hell.

CB: You don't want lesser trained pilots in Strankas, else they could crash into each other. That's why Gold Squadron was the only squadron qualified to fly the Excaliburs. That's also why Blair preferred good ConFed vets in the Dragon Black Lance fighters than BW greens.


They have, with the Strakhas we see in WC2 and WC3 (as well as the heavier version of Strakhas that are responsible for Claw's destruction).

CB: Good, then we have a fighter that shouldn't be detectable save for some trip line sensors (and even then, you need a huge amount).

A fighter with no electronic emisions, and one that doesn't comunicate with anyone, has very little chance of detection. The speed doesn't make any difference.

CB: Well, speed can make a difference to avoid detection if the person is using trip laser/infrared rays to scan for incoming craft. The faster the fighter, the faster it can evade the scanning rays.


He fired 5 missiles because he is an AI. No one in real life would fire that many missiles, they're way to expensive. And one missile is enough in WC4...

CB: If you were up against an ace pilot, I'm sure you'd want to be firing that many missiles and perhaps more. I know a single dumbfire can't destroy a Dragon Fighter (or any other fighter for that matter) when it hits and that's the most powerful missile except for the mace. And from what I've seen, the mace has even less control than the dumb fire. Both of them are unguided so that leaves us w/ the other missiles. Firing just one of any of those missiles at any fighter, in the WC games I've played, never had taken down that fighter.

It's too dangerous because it required more carefull attacks that will leave you vulrneable on other fronts.

CB: I won't be vulnerable. And when I get a capship (like a Ralari), I can use it to reinforce my position to defend those other fronts.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you won't get a bigger fleet if you don't capture ships.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the history of any country on this planet, have you heard of any country that would try to capture any ship it encountered, so they'd have a larger fleet? You build fleets, you capture resources for that, you don't capture capships. Wedge is right, this thread is silly.

CB: Yes, the USA. Take John Paul Jones in the Revolutionary War for example. Another example: WWII, USA Navy ship had encountered a ship and had planned to take it over if it was Imperialist Japan or be saved by it if it was Chinese -- that's was a phrase from a primary resource (a USA Navy officer) who was there.



Droping your shields? That's crazy, during a battle a lucky shot could get you imedietly. And if you shut down your engines, there's a chance you won't start them up again.

CB: That's only if I'm detected and the guns have locked on to me. The Stranka in WCA series had stealth and shields and guns and engines all simultaneously operative. I could have the armor reduced some to reduce the weight so I could install a more powerful engine.


Come on, haven't you been listening? Capturin ships is hard, it's terribly hard. You can't just capture a ship because you feel like it.

CB: Oh I could, believe me. I'm sure in the Kilrathi War, they could've used that bioweapon from WCA series that doctor had researched. Just put it on some fletchette ammo and have a little drone shoot that stuff all around in a ship. And don't tell me that ConFed would not have done that because of the no-bioweapon agreement -- when the Kilrathi broke their treaty and renewed the Terran/Kilrathi War and were blowing up worlds like Warsaw, it's rational to believe they would've broke their no bioweapon agreement as well.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(like that Kilrathi friend of Bondarevsky)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are you talking about. Bear doesn't have any cat friends that have been liberated from a capture ship.

Well, not literally liberated, but as a figure of speech. In Fleet Action, there was that Kilrathi that got captured, then befriended Bondarevsky, and went with him to a bar.


And how would you get those fighters into a battle? Even if they are remotely controled, it would be a waste of money that the government would never stand for

CB: Yeah, like remote controlled missiles that expand into fighters. Those missile drone fighters shouldn't cost much at all. I know model rockets that can be built for more than a million times less than one of the USA's Hornet fighters. And you have to remember, if the fighter gets destroyed, then the pilot could get killed too. Even if he ejected, he might get vaporized by capship shields, laser shots, afterburner exhaust, fighters colliding with him, etc.
 
Back
Top