TC
SubCrid
Originally posted by Aries
50k actually. but why should they need to make the tonnage lower?
Thrust. For each extra bit of mass, you've cut the accelleration of the ship.
Originally posted by Aries
50k actually. but why should they need to make the tonnage lower?
Originally posted by Aries
50k actually. but why should they need to make the tonnage lower? afterall, they have those jump engines that can use damn near any jump point, regardless of mass. cost shouldn't matter, cause the vesuvius had that special armor. if the midway was using standard armor, would't the cost armor be less?
and i ment the devastator type plasma cannon, not the big bug one
Yeah, yeah, heard it all before - and it's still bullshit . This same argument can be made about any capship in WC. The Vesuvius that's supposedly such a grand idea compared to the Midway was also destroyed in a single strike by the player. By these standards, only the Concordia can be considered a good capship - and only because it was invulnerable all through the game.Originally posted by BattleDog
Yeah, Its worked so far.
On the other hand, give me a Manta and two wingmen, plus 6 Devil rays as Escort and I'll sink her
Or, give me a Dev and two wingmen, plus 6 Vamps as Escort and I'll sink a Bug Dreadnaught.
The survival of the Miday is down to the Player, In one of the defence missions, try not shooting anything, she goes down pretty quick.
Originally posted by Haesslich
Because you'd need to cut mass down if you want to have any maneuverability, acceleration, etc...
Originally posted by Aries
it doesn't have any of that anyway
still, you would think that with blair heading the program, the midway would still have better armor. after all, he was a pilot and knows how to take out carriers and knows that the main shipkiller is a torp that bypasses shields. he may not have designed it, but he had to at least have some input on the design. but instead, the midway looks like it was designed by bearuacrats or used car salesmen: incredible shields, hardly any armor (but hey, it's got great shields, so it doesn't need armor), a low top speed (but hey, it's got great shields, so it doesn't have to have good speed), no maneuverability (but hey, it's got great shields, so it doesn't have to have good maneuverability), and a lower fighter compliment than the previous carrier design (as a cost cutting measure, and anyway, it's got great shields), oh, and did i mention it's got great shields?
And he wasn't heading the program - he was a design consultant. You do realize that a project like that's not a one-person job? I suspect his contributions probably went through in a committee, and they stuck him with the fighter aspects. The arterial storage seems like an idea he might've pushed for, given how the Concordia kept having issues with its launch tubes getting shut down due to sabotage or combat damage.
Beyond that, they still had to go for limited ship-kills in the Vision engine, at least, due to the heavy armor at any other point except for the bridge and engines... else we could've killed Midway with a shot at any old angle, the way we may be able to do so in WCP for GBA.
Originally posted by Wedge009
Like a mix between old-fashioned capship bashing (WC1/3/4) and component targeting (WCP/SO)? Sounds interesting.
As for the argument of one big target versus several small ones, I think some consideration also applies to what you're trying to do. An entrapment or seige scenario is much easier to accomplish with several smaller ships encircling a large target (dreadnought, Super Star Destroyer, planet, etc).