What is with the Nephilim?

[Earthworm]

Look, if it was up to me, my bombers would be fighters, like the Excal, loaded to the teeth with torps. They would have a huge chance of surviving compared to a Longbow or Dev.

If you'd load an Excal with torps, it wouldn't have missiles, be as slow as any bomber, and have weaker armor/shields.

 

[Earthworm]

I see now. You've been playing on Rookie where torps aren't shot down....that explains it. Christ, give the AI some credit. If there's any Lamprey's around, and you fire a torp from 20,000 clicks, if they have to make a suicide run, they'll blow up that damn torp. I've seen it happen.

Why don't you shut up man? Please drop the cheap personal insults. I've said that I'm not playing on Rookie. When I play Prophecy it's usually on nightmare, and I've absolutely never seen and AI, enemy or friendly, shot down a torpedo (I've seen some Confed fighters run into my torps though, yeah I should give them some credit for that).

They run to torps like stink on shit. I've seen Moray's with enough aim and skills to take out torps. I've had wingmen fly into the dman things. Done, one torp down.

Did you ever have wingman run into your torps? That pretty much diminishes any kind of respect I could have for them.

Fire another, Ok, that one got through. Go to bridge, fire one light, turrets take it down.

And again, I've never seen a turret somwhere near the bridge shot down a torp. Probably because I'm fairly close to the thing, and I aproach at a good angle.

Fly out, regroup, make another run, bug on my ass, loose lock, start all over.

Why would you fly away and regroup? Just hang around the bridge. If you can do that while waiting for the Plasma to recharge you sure as hell can do that when waiting for missile lock.

[Qu\UOTE]Regroup, make another run, This time light torp gets through. YES! Bridge still alive, down to one wingman, and 3 escorts, with yet another transport left to go.[/QUOTE]I wonder if this is a personal experience or just something you made up in the last few minutes...

 

[Quarto]

The Plasma range is 3,000 klicks. Before you get that close you could fire at least two torps...

Yeah, if you fly at the Dev's bog-standard 320kps - and get toasted by an enemy fighter. Remember, the stuff about being able to lock a torpedo from 20,000 is BS. You'd have to have a perfect straight-arrow approach towards the component, which you never have. Thus, in practice a torp's lock range is probably no more than 10,000, and in many cases no more than 5,000. So, with a distance like that, you have to fly at 320kps (in a straight line, of course) if you want to fire two torps - and that means you will get fried. Much better to charge in on afterburners, fire one torp as you approach (that's all you'll have time for), then finish off the component with plasma.

 

[Earthworm]

You don't need a perfect straight line. Just aproach from an angle and try to straighten up on your aproach.

Second, I don't belive I've said that a torp/plasma combo is bad. I don't belive I've comented about that at all, Obviously being able to fire a torp and a Plasma at the same time is great. Basicly what I've been arguing about is torp vs Plasma.

 

[Quarto]

Second, I don't belive I've said that a torp/plasma combo is bad. I don't belive I've comented about that at all, Obviously being able to fire a torp and a Plasma at the same time is great. Basicly what I've been arguing about is torp vs Plasma.

I didn't say you did

.

 

[Penguin]

Earthworm: "I'll try to respond to the rest later, for now I just skimmed through it." I'll see if I can condense my posts for you

Well at the rate this thread's going I'll try

Knight: Try eliminating the fighters first - that should improve the torp's chances of making it through first.

Ice Viper: Cool idea - it's already been successfully implemented on the Sabre & Vaktoth.

Earthworm: "If you'd load an Excal with torps, it wouldn't have missiles, be as slow as any bomber, and have weaker armor/shields." They fitted torps to the Sabre and I didn't notice any change in performance.

Quarto: At 20,000 klicks or whatever, you shouldn't have any trouble getting a clean run on the components. Just circle around 'till you have the targeting boxes cleanly on the components. It's when you're skimming close to the ship that finding components becomes tricky. There's the hull and all those protrusions in the way.

Earthworm: "Basicly what I've been arguing about is torp vs Plasma." Don't I know it

Quarto: Stop nit picking

Just kidding

 

[Mad Hatter]

Earthworm, haven`t you ever had your torp shot down by a bug transport? Unless you fire the torpedo up close, in which case the whole distance advantage is eliminated, there`s a pretty good chance it will be shot down by the turret.
Regarding being able to fire from 20K klicks on components, only the engine is easy to lock on. The bridge is usually concealed by the "arms" in front. If you don`t fire up close, there`s a pretty good chance you`ll hit one of the arms instead.

Finally, the torp - Plasma gun combination is a killer combination, if only because it lets you fire 2 weapons capable of penetrating phase shields simultaniously, thus increasing the damage done.

 

[Shane]

Two things.

One, I have to agree with Knight, I'm not a big fan of the Shrike, it always struck me as under powered and under armed, though I do like the CMD. I've had only one or two torps of mine ever destroyed, but I follow the WC2 philosphy of firing the things at near point blank range, so it isn't a problem.

However, I have been on approach runs toward the bridge and seen my wingmen launch torps and seen them taken out by turrets, both on Nightmare and Ace. I've never played at any of the other settings. I do like the idea of putting HPC on corvettes and other capships. Would make for some interesting battles.

Two, happy three month anniversary to this thread. I went back and looked and Metras started this on July 11th. I may not get to some of the other posts around here due to new time constraints, but I do try to make every effort to keep current on this thread. I've been pleased to see that most of the time we keep this thread very civil even though we often find ourselves agreeing to disagree. I've always felt that just because you disagree you don't have to be disagreeable.

 

[Ziggy2 Stardust]

rawrr stop posting tihs threads to long

------------------
Making love with his ego Ziggy sucked up into his mind
Like a leper messiah
When the kids had killed the man I had to break up the band.

 

[Earthworm]

Earthworm: "If you'd load an Excal with torps, it wouldn't have missiles, be as slow as any bomber, and have weaker armor/shields." They fitted torps to the Sabre and I didn't notice any change in performance.

I'm pretty sure that what he meant was a lot more than one or two torps. He did say loaded to the teeth with torps. It seems that what he would do is replace all bombers with heavy fighters, just because fighters are usually better than bombers in the games.

 

[Earthworm]

Earthworm, haven`t you ever had your torp shot down by a bug transport?

By the turret near the engine yes, but not near the bridge, especially any of the larger capships. Those turrets near the bridge seem to be useless.

Regarding being able to fire from 20K klicks on components, only the engine is easy to lock on. The bridge is usually concealed by the "arms" in front. If you don`t fire up close, there`s a pretty good chance you`ll hit one of the arms instead.

Arms? The only bridge that's concealed could be the one on the Dreadnough with all the missile turrets around the bridge, and the cruiser's bridge. Actually, I prefer to fire at the bridge from long distance, because when I get close to the ship I can get practicly lost in it's hull, and I'll sometimes fire a torp at the hull because the bridge is on the other side.

Finally, the torp - Plasma gun combination is a killer combination, if only because it lets you fire 2 weapons capable of penetrating phase shields simultaniously, thus increasing the damage done.

Of course it is. But when it comes to torp vs Plasma, I'm still behind the torps.

 

[Chernikov]

Earthworm: The Sabre has been loaded down with torps before (all but two slots filled). The only cut in performance during that mission was that I couldnt fire any missiles. [sarcasm]BIG loss[/sarcasm]. If all fighters have that little performance drop when loaded for big game (the Vampires dont do badly either - what, four light torps and still able to carry a decent missile load...) then there truly isnt any reason for bombers except as an excuse to put REALLY big guns on the, and for the R+D department to have fun with...

 

[Earthworm]

The Sabre could cary at most what, 6 torps? That's not much, at least not if you're planing to go against something heavier. That's even less than the Shrike has. Second, the Excal couldn't carry any missiles while loaded with the T-bomb, and it didn't handle nearly as well at that time. Plus, maybe the missiles in WC2 are useless, but sending a heavy strike fighter with no missiles, or just two is suicide.

 

[Wedge009]

I've never been much of a missile user, so having the most of the hardpoints loaded with torps never bothered me any. Actually, unless you're going up against multiple capships, you should only need two torps, maybe three max just in case, so I suppose six on the Sabre's strike load is a bit overkill.

I'm glad you think the plasma/torp combo is a good idea, Earthworm, but I thought 'vs' arguments were not considered a good thing. Still, it's kept this thread alive and kickin'

 

[Earthworm]

WC has always been a game that concentrated more on the gun use, but still, missiles are a the most powerfull weapon and you just can't send a strike fighter without any.

Plus, even if against only one capship you might need two or more. IIRC, a wartime heavy carrier could survive 2 torp hits, and if you're going against a carrier, you're most likelly going against it's escorts too.

If it's just a lone destroyer or cruiser though, you indeed wouldn't need more than 2/3.

 

[Knight]

Why don't you shut up man? Please drop the cheap personal insults. I've said that I'm not playing on Rookie. When I play Prophecy it's usually on nightmare, and I've absolutely never seen and AI, enemy or friendly, shot down a torpedo (I've seen some Confed fighters run into my torps though, yeah I should give them some credit for that).

Damn man, calm down. I tried to saturate that in sarcasim, but I guess I should have let it marinate a little longer. Next time I'll just bake it and give it strait.

And again, I've never seen a turret somwhere near the bridge shot down a torp. Probably because I'm fairly close to the thing, and I aproach at a good angle.

Do me a favor and define "good" angle.

Why would you fly away and regroup? Just hang around the bridge. If you can do that while waiting for the Plasma to recharge you sure as hell can do that when waiting for missile lock.

The reason to regroup is to take out that damn bug that's riding your ass before you go back to your run, at which time you have to regroup anyway.

I wonder if this is a personal experience or just something you made up in the last few minutes...

It's me everytime I'm in a Shrike w/o my plasma

I just can't stand that ship.

Shane: Thanks for agreeing

Glad someone does

Quarto: Thanks for kinda agreeing

Earthworm: I didn't say you didn't think it was a bad combo either, but you gotta admit, makes for an interesting conversation

Penguin: Fighter's aren't a problem, whether I'm in a Dev or Shrike. At least for me and my ship. For my missles and torps, they're a bitch.

Sorry about all the arguing, I'm just not big on torps or hardpoints period. I'm more of a gunner

There's been too many missions when I've just let all my missles loose and used guns. But I usually don't tell my wingmen to break and attack

So I get most of the kills.

------------------
Member of the LMG and hating it (Disgruntled Man)
Real heros wear SCBAs, not capes.--Me.

 

[Earthworm]

Do me a favor and define "good" angle.

A good angle, is one that will allow you to aproach the bridge in a way that'll make it imposible for turrets to get your torps.

The reason to regroup is to take out that damn bug that's riding your ass before you go back to your run, at which time you have to regroup anyway.

If a bag is "riding" your ass, and it's really bad enough so that you'd have to regroup, you would have to regroup when with the Plasma too.

It's me everytime I'm in a Shrike w/o my plasma

I just can't stand that ship.

Well, I can't stand the Dev, so...

 

[Penguin]

Shane: "I've always felt that just because you disagree you don't have to be disagreeable." Exactly. It's 1 of the reasons why we stick around at this board. Not much point remaining if all you do is flame...

Earthworm: "It seems that what he would do is replace all bombers with heavy fighters, just because fighters are usually better than bombers in the games." Well 1 of my philosophies is always take the best tool. In WC's case I've always felt heavy fighters gave you the best survivability when attacking the enemy. The bombers edge was the sheer firepower, which allowed you to KO capships quickly.

Chernikov: "The only cut in performance during that mission was that I couldnt fire any missiles." IIRC with 6 torps the Sabre still had some missiles - IIRC 2 FF.

Earthworm: "The Sabre could cary at most what, 6 torps? That's not much." Eh?

6 torps is a lot in WC2. The Broadsword only carried 4. 6 torps equals 3 phase shielded capships. If some torps get waxed that's still enough to safely put down 2 big capships.

Wedge009: "Sabre's strike load is a bit overkill." Better overkill then underkill

"I thought 'vs' arguments were not considered a good thing." The only problem with that type of debate is the flaming. As long as we keep it civil & state valid points it's OK.

Earthworm: "WC has always been a game that concentrated more on the gun use." WC is meant to be WWII in space and I don't remember them using Imrecs or FFs in the Battle of Britain

 

[Vondoom]

Thats something I've never really gotten either. WC combat feels nothing at all like WWII in space. If you want that, then you pop any of the X-Wing series. That feels like WWII in space. WC always felt far more modern to me, in the way the ships handle, the punishment they can take (wxcept in WC4 - which i liked, made me learn how to fly and fight). But the combat is just way too fast and furious to be anything like WWII. Heck, the X-wing engine was based off of Lucasarts WWII games, like Battle of Britain, Midway, and Secret Weapons of the Luftaffwe. The only engine that WC was based off of anything was the Strike Commander engine, which was an early build of the WC3/WC4 engine. And that game was a modern/slightly futuristic flight sim with F-16's to F-22's.

------------------
There is no God but myself. No destiny but what I deem for me. I walk my path and no others, for I am free.

http://www.ntr.net/~vondoom

 

[Shane]

I think the Sabre should have suffered a performance loss with the additional torps, but may not have been something that occured to them, or was too difficult at the time to pull off. It would have been nice to have dynamic improvements. As you fire torps your ship handles better, for example.

I never really noticed the Performace problems with the T-Bomb because I stayed cloaked all the time. I dropped out to fry Thrak with a salvo of missles, and the re-cloaked and un-cloaked to drop the T-Bomb. Were the WC2 era torps smaller than the current ones, or am I just pulling that out of... um, thin air?

As for missles, I didn't use them as much in WC1 and WC2, they weren't as effective, I thought. I did use them a lot in Priv and in the games since WC3.