Which fighter type is your favorite?

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by BattleDog
Well there is conclusive proof that you use antigravs. In startup on WCIII

"Repulsorlifts online"

So there you go.

I still think Mass/Size is reversed. Generally fighters get bigger, not smaller. You start with tiny by-planes and work up to jets.

So since that doesn't happen it suggests all the tech is mature. If missiles are smaller how come the Thud and Excal is SO don't carry more.

I say that in WCI-III-IV size/mass is screwed and in WCP mass is screwed.

The missiles may be smaller, but that doesn't mean your older fighters can suddenly carry more. Those inline bays use hardpoints. Take a look at the F/A-22 for one example of this in current tech. It's not just a 'missile bay', at least not from what we can tell. You still saw missile hardpoints in the WC3 missile loadout screen.

Besides, you'd need to do some serious reprogramming of the systems to handle more missiles - changing parameters to allow the fighter to target/interface with newer generations of missiles is probably far easier in comparison.

 

[Delance]

Come on. Technology is not that consistent along all the games. There's no "grand plan" for technology on WC. Just take a look at the Privateer games. Even the original one has different tech. I don't think a dragon-like AB system would be openly available to all mercenaries on the Gemini sector, either. Do I care about that? Not at all.

 

[Chris Blair]

My favorite is the Excalibur, next is the Thunderbolt. I never liked the Longbow.

 

[HammerHead]

Originally posted by Delance
Come on. Technology is not that consistent along all the games. There's no "grand plan" for technology on WC. Just take a look at the Privateer games. Even the original one has different tech. I don't think a dragon-like AB system would be openly available to all mercenaries on the Gemini sector, either. Do I care about that? Not at all.

Well, they didn't realy kept all the "tech-facts" straight, did they?

Shame.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by HammerHead
Well, they didn't realy kept all the "tech-facts" straight, did they?

They just don't let it come in the way of gameplay. WC has a remarkable consistency, considering all the different game engines and game settings it had. But if you start nitpicking you’ll start finding small problems.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Delance
Come on. Technology is not that consistent along all the games. There's no "grand plan" for technology on WC. Just take a look at the Privateer games. Even the original one has different tech. I don't think a dragon-like AB system would be openly available to all mercenaries on the Gemini sector, either. Do I care about that? Not at all.

The Afterburner system was different though... it ran off the gun capacitors instead of fuel. That'd be a stupid system to have in a military fighter, where you want to be able to use the afterburner consistantly while still being able to efficiently use your weapons... It definitely isn't the same system used in the Lance.

 

[HammerHead]

Originally posted by TC
The Afterburner system was different though... it ran off the gun capacitors instead of fuel. That'd be a stupid system to have in a military fighter, where you want to be able to use the afterburner consistantly while still being able to efficiently use your weapons... .

It's a stuiped system for a militery fighter, but for a civilian fighter or ship, one which it's owner would like to mess around fuel filling, and finding the right type of fuel, and if you land on a planet with no fuel you get stuck. For him, losing so combat efficentcy while greatly reducing logistic problems might be an exceptable trade-off.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by TC
The Afterburner system was different though... it ran off the gun capacitors instead of fuel. That'd be a stupid system to have in a military fighter, where you want to be able to use the afterburner consistantly while still being able to efficiently use your weapons... It definitely isn't the same system used in the Lance.

Oh, that's right! Yes, yes, I remember now, you're correct. Well, it kinda contributes to the point I was trying to make.

 

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by Delance
Oh, that's right! Yes, yes, I remember now, you're correct. Well, it kinda contributes to the point I was trying to make.

There's a reason why tech in Privateer and Privateer 2 from the other games. The first Privateer was using civilian tech, which wouldn't be comparable to the 'state of the art' at the time (WC3 period or so).

Privateer 2 takes place somewhere else entirely, during a different timeframe, which means your tech base is different anyways.

 

[BattleDog]

Are they using hardpoints in the way we think though, or are they using missile bays. The difference would be that the ordinace isn't hung, its fitted differently.

If this is the case reorganising the bays would give you more missiles. Or you could simply fit newer racks to carry the missiles.

As to reprogramming, well the techhasn't changed. The missiles types are exactly the same.

 

[Ijuin]

Originally posted by Haesslich
There's a reason why tech in Privateer and Privateer 2 from the other games. The first Privateer was using civilian tech, which wouldn't be comparable to the 'state of the art' at the time (WC3 period or so).

Yeah. For example, civspec missiles in Privateer are only about half as powerful as milspec missiles in WC2/3. In WC3 an IR missile can take out a Dralthi IV with full shields up, but in Privateer it takes up to three missiles to kill a Dralthi. I figure that the Centurion is more or less equal in ability to the WC2 Rapier.

 

[Aries]

Originally posted by Ijuin
I figure that the Centurion is more or less equal in ability to the WC2 Rapier.

given a choice, i'd choose the centurion

 

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by BattleDog
Are they using hardpoints in the way we think though, or are they using missile bays. The difference would be that the ordinace isn't hung, its fitted differently.

If this is the case reorganising the bays would give you more missiles. Or you could simply fit newer racks to carry the missiles.

As to reprogramming, well the techhasn't changed. The missiles types are exactly the same.

As far as we can tell, I'd suggest that they're using hardpoints - if only because the less complicated the mechanism, the harder it is to screw up in combat. Look at the internal diagrams of the F/A-22 - even if the missile bays are inline, they mount missiles on hardpoints.

Beyond that, even if they're using 'missile bays' in the sense you suggest (missiles not mounted on hardpoints), do you think they've got a lot of waldos and servos moving missiles around in there, as if they were lying there like bananas in a crate, rather than on rails or some sort of loading mechanism to pop them up into a launch mechanism? I doubt you could merely 'reorganize the bays', especially since they'd probably develop the mechanisms inside for a specific size of missile and class of missile.

And while the 'types' may be the same, their performance and targeting characteristics are not. The targeting computer needs to know all that data, so it can target the damned thing properly and feed it whatever data it needs. Otherwise you could mount any old missile or bomb onto an F-16... which isn't the case. They've got specific types that the targeting systems are programmed for, as otherwise the calculations for the targeting can be dead wrong and the bomb or missile goes completely off target.