Starburst Missile

frostytheplebe

frostytheplebe

Seventh Part of the Seal
Did anyone really find an effective way of using these? When I first heard about it, I suspected that it would be a weapon not unlike the WC2 Mace missile. Detonating it near fighters and attempting to slam it into cap ships proved otherwise.

In any case, its been about two years since I've flown a fighter equipped with em.
 
I never found them terribly useful. The conebursts were better and could be useful if used right on a fleeing enemy. I didn't mount them too often. I used to load conebursts and maces during the sneak in Axis mission to nail the two fleeing Lance's at the jump point.
 
I used the starburst a few times, to great effect, but I was never any good with the timing. The coneburst was always completely useless to me.
 
Vinman said:
Didn't Pliers admit that the starburst "sucked"?
Click to expand...

Yup: "Boy does that Starburst bomb suck. Guess that's why it was still in testing. Well, I've been tinkering with it, made it more useful. Instead of bursting all over the place it all blows forward in a cone shape. Like some big shotgun. Someone's gonna shit."
 
I had trouble with all of the timed-detonation missiles. I prefer traditional missiles to them. Maybe on my next play through I'll practice with them.
 
I haven't found a real use for the Starburst/Coneburst missiles either. As for the Mace, it's nice to see it explode, but I expected it to be much better.
 
Why no one ever mounted a little simple device like a proximity sensor on a missile like the Mace or the starburst is beyond me. After all, the mines had proximity sensors. Would it have been that hard to program the missile to blow up once it was within 1000 m (or whatever its lethal range was) of a target?

Or, even better, encode some logic that it would blow up once it was withing 1000 m of at least two targets...
 
I wonder if you really want a nuclear missile that explodes based only on proximity in the middle of a pitched space battle... it might be fine for shooting off at an enemy formation at the start of an engagement, but anywhere else you run the risk of hurting friendlies.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
It seems like it'd frequently be a waste of a nuclear warhead, fired but unable to commit when a friendly was nearby.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but at the same time it would be a lot safer. I know this is a rather weak comparison, but in flight today there are very serious protocals for launching nuclear tipped weapons. The very activation of them has to come from the president himself. Even in space they seem to be very dangerous, given Blairs reaction when he first hears about the Mace in WC2.
 
frostytheplebe said:
Perhaps, but at the same time it would be a lot safer. I know this is a rather weak comparison, but in flight today there are very serious protocals for launching nuclear tipped weapons. The very activation of them has to come from the president himself. Even in space they seem to be very dangerous, given Blairs reaction when he first hears about the Mace in WC2.
Click to expand...

Nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon, no matter how many years in the future. It's not surprising that Blair would feel uncomfortable with one strapped to his fighter. Although, it is odd how no one seems to have a problem with carrying Anti-matter tipped torpedoes regularly. Perhaps it's a reflection of the ending of the cold war a few years prior, in the real world.
 
I tend to think of the Genie nuclear tipped air to air missile that the USAF had in its inventory for a time. That missile IIRC did possess at least rudimentary guidance and proximity equipment for detonation.

Seems to me that the speed at which space combat occurs would render a pilot detonated missile completely useless. You would be, for the most part, far to busy with setting up for the inevitable confrontation to worry about where that nuke is going and when you were going to detonate it (could you do it by eye in space anyway?.)

I think it would have to have some sort of proximity sensor or IFF recognition in it. This kind of weapon would never be fired after a dogfight situation erupted anyway. You would fire it as an interceptor at, say, an attacking squadron of incoming bombers so save a capship.
 
Dundradal said:
Nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon, no matter how many years in the future. It's not surprising that Blair would feel uncomfortable with one strapped to his fighter. Although, it is odd how no one seems to have a problem with carrying Anti-matter tipped torpedoes regularly. Perhaps it's a reflection of the ending of the cold war a few years prior, in the real world.
Click to expand...

My point exactly, a dumbfire nuke is not a very good idea because of the implications surrounding it.

This is something Maniac probably thought up while look at Playboy when he was supposed to be designing the Morningstar.:p

ELTEE said:
I tend to think of the Genie nuclear tipped air to air missile that the USAF had in its inventory for a time. That missile IIRC did possess at least rudimentary guidance and proximity equipment for detonation.

Seems to me that the speed at which space combat occurs would render a pilot detonated missile completely useless. You would be, for the most part, far to busy with setting up for the inevitable confrontation to worry about where that nuke is going and when you were going to detonate it (could you do it by eye in space anyway?.)
Click to expand...

Personally, all I ever used the Mace for was an instant kill on a capship.
 
The Mace in WC2 could be used to destroy several fighters at once if you set it off with your particle cannons... Getting the timing right was pretty difficult, but it could be very helpful if you managed to do it.

In WC4, it's apparently outdated (although I might be able to find a use for it in Outrun Ella. We'll see.).
 
You can do the same trick in Standoff. I either try to shoot it down, or try to time it so that the mace goes off in the middle of a gauntlet wave.
 
Well, the scary part about a nuke that would not apply to an antimatter warhead is the ionizing radiation--those who are not immediately killed end up with radiation poisoning or cancer. That would be enough to make it seem horrifying, just as people today instinctively fear a guy with a blade more than a guy with a gun despite the gun's greater lethality--because the blade leaves more suffering to those that it doesn't kill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top