New Fighter; Stinger

Having two thirds of your weapons shot off isn't a good thing. It's the pilot's fault if he shoots the Mace in a way where it's likely to get himself damaged. The design is far more survivable and can deal a lot more damage than a Ferret with a torpedo.

Your or you're? You're: Contraction of the words "you are," e.g., "You're up for an award. Someone said you're leaving." Your is a possessive form of a personal pronoun, e.g., "I like your Web site. Tom, thanks for giving your time to this effort." Both: "Your knowledge of HTML shows that you're a dedicated designer."
Click to expand...
 
What Confed should of done was equip the Broadswords with afterburners. that way they could lock the torps at long range then afterburn in launch the fish and pull out. That was aways what I liked to do with the Strike Sabres.
 
Except that not including afterburners in the Broadsword wasn't some arbitrary decision by an evil bureaucrat who decided bombers don't need afterburners. We don't know the reason for their absence in the Broadsword... but we do know that they weren't there because they couldn't be there - otherwise, they would have been there :p.
 
True However the lack of Afterburners was one of the causes of the Broadswords demise. It's also the reason that Buships chose the Longbow over the Crossbow. The Longbow had a heavier payload, stronger guns, good shields and armor, as well as the afterburner to boot.
 
Lemme guess... Fleet Tactics:)?

The Longbow actually existed long before the Crossbow -- we see a Longbow being used as an SAR craft in an episode of Wing Commander Academy. If I had to venture a theory as to the role of the Crossbow, it'd be that it's important because it can be used onboard smaller ships like CVEs and Cruisers...
 
Super Ferret

Actually, you didn't just descibe a Morningstar, which is in every way a heavy superiority fighter...your "ferret with one torpedo" is an Epee....which is, in my opinion, the coolest fighter to fly. Since a Ferret is only slightly larger than a heavy torpedo, Confed obviously created a "new" type of fighter in the Ferret/Super Ferret. It would not be feasible to strap a torp on a Ferret under any circumstances, so Confed designed the Epee, which is the heaviest light fighter that was ever put into major service. No only did it have ideal primary weaponry, both fast and powerful (particle cannons) but it could carry a torp slung onto it's underbelly. The Epee is extremely manuverable like your Ferret, but has better weaponry, can handle missles/torpedos for only a slight impedement to its overall speed and acceleration. You should try flying one in Standoff buddy, you will realize how much the Ferret sucks the first time you turn a Gothri into a shower of sparks with your particle cannons. So the next time you go off high-falooting about a "new" type of fighter you just "developed" make sure that it hasn't been invented already. :)
 
the raptor and rapier....good during its time, but then it would probaly over time lose to the hellcat then to the piranhas
 
When Confed use fighters to strike missions, they go with the heavy ones. Good examples are the Sabre, the Thunderbolt and the Vampire. The Epee with a torp was probably not the pilot's first choice when attacking heavly armed ships.
 
It probably depends on which WC era your talking about. I can't speak for the rest of them, but in WC3 and 4, speed is king. If I was an admiral in the WC3/4 environment, I'd rather trade off all of my heavy fighters and bombers for torp/dumbfire equipped light fighters. Earlier and maybe later WC games might give heavy fighters a greater advantage?

I know I'd rather have heavier fighters and bombers doing anti capship missions in other games (Homeworld2/Starlancer/Ares), but impartially I think WC3/4 would favor fast fighters equipped with anti-capship loadouts in the place of bombers such as the Longbow and Avenger and heavy fighters like the Thunderbolt. I would still favor the Dragon and Excalibur even though they're not the fastest since they carry a larger loadout, are close to the fastest, and can cloak. These faster ships could get in quickly, giving enemy capships less time to scramble. They could extend out of the combat arena after delivering their payload by hitting slide at full speed and shooting to deter any pursuers while they disengaged.

An added bonus of replacing bomber units with faster fighters would be the added defense capabilities from having double the antifighter craft to intercept enemy strike forces.
 
Mjr. Whoopass said:
It probably depends on which WC era your talking about. I can't speak for the rest of them, but in WC3 and 4, speed is king. If I was an admiral in the WC3/4 environment, I'd rather trade off all of my heavy fighters and bombers for torp/dumbfire equipped light fighters. Earlier and maybe later WC games might give heavy fighters a greater advantage?

I know I'd rather have heavier fighters and bombers doing anti capship missions in other games (Homeworld2/Starlancer/Ares), but impartially I think WC3/4 would favor fast fighters equipped with anti-capship loadouts in the place of bombers such as the Longbow and Avenger and heavy fighters like the Thunderbolt. I would still favor the Dragon and Excalibur even though they're not the fastest since they carry a larger loadout, are close to the fastest, and can cloak.
Click to expand...

If they had torpedo mounts aboard the Victory for the Arrow and Hellcat, I'd still take the Thunderbolt or Longbow if I had to strike a capital ship. Something like the Arrow can already carry a stack of dumbfires, which is good for any sort of Corvette or medium ship it might come across.
 
I'll play one of these...

torpedomount.jpg


But seriously, the indication from the WC3 novel is that when you stick heavier munitions onto a fighter that isn't necessarily designed to carry them it causes a decrease in performance. So, a Hellcat with a torpedo isn't the same as a Hellcat with a normal missile loadout in terms of speed and maneuverability.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's true. That's what made WC4 so senseless since the Vindicator and the Avenger would take torpedos even when they were going on patrol missions.
 
Yeah, the torpedo-carrying ships in WC3/4 ought to have allowed you to load normal missiles in the torpedo points.
 
It would defeat the purpose of light fighters, escort fighters and the sort.
I suppose the ships design were design for something specific hence the Thunderbolt and the Longbow design for heavy attack and bombing run respectively.
If I had a choice, the Thunderbolt VII would have be the decent against heavy attack fighters and bombing run on light capital ships
 
Correct me if I'm wrong since it's been a while since I played WC2 and the accompanying expansions...but isnt' there already a Super Ferret? Secondly...why on earth would you want to put a torp on the Ferret? There is no way you could line up a torpedo run and not get shot down by flak...If you launched it early the flak would get the torp...if you closed in to 2000-3000 Klicks the flak would eat you alive.
 
I think that the USAF should put nukes and huge torpedoes on F-5 Tigers.
That's how smart your idea is.
 
Dahan said:
the raptor and rapier....good during its time, but then it would probaly over time lose to the hellcat then to the piranhas
Click to expand...


Heck yeah, buddy! You can't go wrong with a Hellcat.
 
tis good until the fighters in prophecy like the piranhas, panthers, wasp, shrikes, vampires, devastators and so on
 
Correct me if I'm wrong since it's been a while since I played WC2 and the accompanying expansions...but isnt' there already a Super Ferret?
Click to expand...

You are correct, there is already a Super Ferret. The P-64D is introduced in Special Operations 1. It features a pair of Javelins and "new control systems".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top