Technology gap between WC 3 and WCP

Here are a couple of my opinions on the technology gap from WC 2 to WC 3. At first glance it appears that shield and armor technologies have improved by a factor of 10. However , it is my view that WC 3 ships merely leave out the decimal in their ratings in the manual (or WC 2 ships have a decimal inserted.. depends on your view). For example the Sabre (WC 2) has a shield rating listed at 10.0 cm, while the Thunderbolt has a shield rating listed at 250 cm. So if the Sabre had been listed in the WC 3 format it's shield rating would be 100cm, still by far outclassed by the more modern ships but not nearly to the same degree (a factor of 2.5 rather than 10).

Likewise rotation speeds of WC 2 ships are off by a factor of 10. The Rapier has Yaw, pitch, roll rated at 10 dps, meanwhile the Thunderbolt is rated at 50dps. So if the Rapier was listed in the WC 3 format it would instead be rated as 100dps. (And I think most people who have played both games will agree that the Rapier does turn closer to twice as fast as a Thunderbolt rather than the Thud turning 5 times faster).

And finally as to why the Mace weapon seems to be abandoned. Well maybe it was just me but damn that weapon was dangerous. I can't remember how many times I vaporized Maniac's Morningstar back in WC2SO.. or had it shot down right in front of my own ship.. been just a smidge too close to my target.. or even had it explode from enemy fire - right on my ship! My opinion is that Confed decided they'd rather not have a weapon like that on too many of their fighters.. especially with pilots like Maniac.. and myself I suppose ;).

Sorry for such a long post but it's my first one on these boards. Please let me know what you think of all that above mess.
 
Maybe there were some breakthroughs on the shielding. Remember, it's scifi. Anything can happen.
 
Heya,
You're correct regarding the YPR -- the WC1/2 numbers are purely for comparison purposes, and are not the *real* turning rates of the fighters.

The reasoning behind the shield and armor has been explained, though... new metals have made the hulls stronger (Isometal is 60 times as strong as Durasteel... which is to say that 1 cm of Isometal provides the equivalent protection of 60 cm of Durasteel). The shields in WC3 are supposedly the same variety of shields found on WC3 capships -- since that's part of another torpedo/no torpedo cycle...

(The Mace returns in WCIV, so it doesn't really disappear... we just don't get assigned them.)
 
Originally posted by Mekt-Hakkikt
Could a Fralthra really sustain a Mace attack? This seems strange as she only needed 2 torps to be destroyed, just like a Ralatha. And a Ralatha could not survive a Mace.
Click to expand...

Maybe this has something to do with the Mass of the Frahlthra compared to the Ralatha and the Shields. The WC2 manual states that the Phase-Shield strength is classified and irrelevant due to the fact that fighters cannot penetrate these shields. Maybe there's a difference in the Shields of the Ralatha and the Frahlthra. As the Frahlthra has a bigger mass and better armor, it could also be that it simply takes a bigger punch, however 2 Torps are still enough to take it out...
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
You're correct regarding the YPR -- the WC1/2 numbers are purely for comparison purposes, and are not the *real* turning rates of the fighters.
Click to expand...
Hmm, is there any way of working out the 'real' YPR on WC1/2 ships then? Do they still hold for capships?
 
Torpedoes and maces are very different weapons -- torpedoes completely ignore shields, and damage only armor. The Mace must damage both shields *and* armor.

As for the Y/P/Rs... yes, they can be easily calculated. I've got them written down somewhere around here -- will post as soon as I locate them.
 
No... take a fighter out, turn it 360 degrees and measure how long it takes... you can get the factor from that.
 
Oh, is the factor different for every fighter? How would you get the true YPR for enemies, then? And the Concordia seemed to turn her tail around fast enough to take care of two Fralthra. :)
 
A nice rounded integer, or a horrible number with decimal points?

[Sorry, just curious. I can wait till you post it. :)]

[Edited by Wedge009 on 03-29-2001 at 22:36]
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
No... take a fighter out, turn it 360 degrees and measure how long it takes... you can get the factor from that.
Click to expand...
Is that correct for the other games too? I think I tried it once in a WC3 ship and it was different to the manual stat.
 
Be sure and use your keyboard instead of the joystick, so you can be sure you're turning as fast as you possibly can.
 
Err, LOAF, any figures you get like that will be wrong. WC, even the KSaga version of it, runs at slightly different speeds on every computer. Then of course there's the human factor - since you're looking at 3-8 seconds, you'll upset the numbers completely even if you press "stop" just a split second too early or too late.

In short, it is totally impossible to use the game to get the exact Y/P/R. x10 is undoubtedly the best estimate.
 
Hmm, I seem to recall having gotten fairly sensible figures -- although I can't really find them anywhere. :) When I do, I'll try taking the measurements again on this computer and see what I get...
 
The Rapier's rate would be 100/100/100. Nothing is written. In other words, if it turns out that LOAF has got reasonable numbers after all, x10 might be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top