Ugliest Ship

Lynx said:
The Sorthak is a fighter. It doesn't carry any torpedos.
Click to expand...

Lynx is right, it's a Superheavy Fighter, just looked it up on the Ship Database (not that I didn't believe you Lynx)
 
Ok, I am boring now but, wouldn't it be more interesting to discuss which ship is the most worthless?
Who cares if a ship is ugly as long as it keeps you in one peace at the front?
 
the most worthless? Technically it's the Tarsus. It was made up for that specific purpose- a ship that the gamer would whant to ditch in order to get something descent.

But for my part, I just can't help myself, I love that peice of junk.
 
The Epee IMHO is the most worthless...I used to not thing that till I went back and played WC2 once again and realized how pathetic it's armor/shields were.
 
IMO, Confed's ugliest ships-
Fighterwise-
The Thud (looks like a Sabre after a visit to a chop shop, with any and all aesthetically pleasing pieces removed)

(On a side note, and I'm sure there will be some disagreement on this, I always thought the Dragon looked like a space-going minivan with wings (especially from the back)- which just doesn't seem to fit with how what is probably the most tricked-out fighter in the entire WC universe should look)

CapShips-
The Ranger/Concordia Class (and to a lesser extent, the Vesuvius)- Just not a fan of a carrier that looks like a shoe box with engines strapped on the side, especially given the distinctiveness of the pre-WC3 Confed Capships (I totally dug the '60's style tail fins on the Confederation class, and the super structures on the Confederation and Bengal that looked like they were lifted off of a nuclear submarine :) )

Kilrathi-
The Dralthi IV (YUCK) (Yeah, WC3 decided to branch away from the first two games with an asymetrical Kilrathi design, but a flying disk type fighter (Dralthi) was just never meant to be asymterical, IMO)

Ignoring the "shoe box" qualities of the Bhantkara (see above), I'd have to go with either the WC2 Fraltha, (kind of an amorphous blob with fins) or the WC1 Sivar.
 
Hmm... I could fill that post with almost all of the Nephilim ships whatsoever.

Anyways, for Confed, the vote goes to the Scilmitar (What's this anyway? Hellcat I?)
for Kilrathi, it's the Sivar dreadnought.... ugly thing
 
Oh- on a second note- the "most worthless ship" note- I'd have to go with the Hornet-anything bigger then a Dralthi takes a good 5 minutes to kill, seeing as it's armed with only a lousy pair of lasers- which makes it nearly worthless for anything but recon missions!!!
 
I didn't like most of the WC3/4 ships

after all the ships from WC 1/2/privateer, going to those boxes..... ugh

I understand that it was probably a limitation on the 3D engine, but giong from smootly flowing lines and rounded curves to boxes in like... 2 years? blegh
 
Lovely does'nt even begin to do the Excalibur justice.
After the X-Wing it's the most superb looking peice of fiction machinery that ever saw the light of day... and even then I'm understating it!
 
The Thud is beautifull... The Sabre is the ugly one! It seems like the squashed it lenghtwise. Very ugly.

I don't really think that WC1 and 2 had rounded, flowing lines, really. They had those characteristics on print, but INGAME they were actually a mess of big pixels.
 
WC1 ships are pretty edgy, I tend to think that fom the pure model geometry WC1 and WC3 would fit better together than with WC2.
 
Eder said:
WC1-2 ships had rounded, flowing lines.
Click to expand...


Well with some interpretation yes and no. The diagrams give the WC1 ships a more edged boxish look. The ingame graphics are more curvy but at that resolution it's really pretty grainy to tell. In my opinion WC1 is about inbetween the boxiness of WC3 and the more curvyiness of what you might see in real life (F15,F16,F18 etc.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top