Which ship do you want to fly on UE2?
- Thread starter Delance
- Start date
Hmmm...the Broadsword would probably be like a lighter version of the Devestator but with less missiles and no afterburners. Basically it's a tortoise--slow, heavy shields and armor, turrets on every side, medium gun load up front (2 Mass drivers/2 Ion in a UE version maybe), torpedoes and some IR/FF missiles. It might be cool to use for the nostalgia, but personally I would prefer to go with the upgraded Avenger from UE1 as the heavy bomber for UE2.
Delance
Victory, you say?
The Avenger doesn't come even close to being a heavy bomber. A heavy bomber is the Devastator, which is far more "heavy", so to speak, than the Avenger. Remember, the Avenger is a heavy fighter on WCIV. Sure, it can be used as a bomber, but nothing like a Devastator. Especially because of the heavy plasma! You should be thinking about the Shrike, a light bomber, in terms of torpedo loadout.
Look at the numbers. The Avenger B1-C has shields and armor better than the Shrike, and slightly greater speed (but slightly slower turning acceleration). It has 8 IR/8 FF/ 4 Hvy Torp, compared to the Devestator carrying 6 IR/6 FF/4 Hvy Torp/6 Lt Torp/36 Mines and the Shrike carrying 4 IR/4 DF/36 Dragonfly/18 Mines/2 Hvy Torp/4 Lt Torp. It also has those capship-shield-penetrating Viper guns (analogous to the Devestator's plasma cannon, only it's a rapid stream of small blasts instead of one big one). The Avenger may not have turrets on all sides like the Devestator, but it does have a double-powerful dual Ion rear turret. I think that the Avenger is actually better than the Shrike, and I would gladly take it instead of the Devestator if it carried eight or a dozen mines in addition.
Delance
Victory, you say?
The WC4 Avenger is a heavy fighter used as a torpedo bomber, probably for the lack of a better ship. 4 torpedo hardpoints is no match for the Devastator! Surely, if you adapt this ighter to be a dedicated bomber and add some more torpedo hardpoints, it could, perhaps, be compared to a Class B torpedo bomber like the Shrike. But surely its performance would not be comparable with a dedicated, built-from scratch Class A bomber like the Devastator, with the very powerful Heavy Plasma Cannon.
Of course the makers of UE can put any stats on the Avenger Bomber, but it would be weird if it were as good as the bad-ass confed bomber.
Of course the makers of UE can put any stats on the Avenger Bomber, but it would be weird if it were as good as the bad-ass confed bomber.
Delance
Victory, you say?
Allright, there's another thing. I really don't want to argue with whoever likes to classify the WC4 Avenger as a bomber. At any event, I'd like to point out that the official classification as a fighter well justified. Also, it's how the Avenger is used in the game:
1. Seether destroys an outpost. Something any fighter with torpedoes could do, really. Inconclusive.
2. The UBW uses the Avenger to patrol and defend a starbase. The job of a fighter.
3. Blair goes on an Avenger to escort the Intrepid and fight off the Lex. Job of a fighter/bomber. Actually, Blair disables the Lex with leech weaponry.
That said, it's abundantly clear that the Avenger we'll see on UE2 is a modified version to be a dedicated bomber. Personally, I just think it makes more sense to make it a class B bomber like the Shrike.
1. Seether destroys an outpost. Something any fighter with torpedoes could do, really. Inconclusive.
2. The UBW uses the Avenger to patrol and defend a starbase. The job of a fighter.
3. Blair goes on an Avenger to escort the Intrepid and fight off the Lex. Job of a fighter/bomber. Actually, Blair disables the Lex with leech weaponry.
That said, it's abundantly clear that the Avenger we'll see on UE2 is a modified version to be a dedicated bomber. Personally, I just think it makes more sense to make it a class B bomber like the Shrike.
Aries
Vice Admiral
the number of torps doesn't determine how good the bomber is.
well, i'd say it's performance is BETTER than a devastator, cause it, as you said, does the job of a fighter, but carries as many heavy torps as the devastator. it has the viper cannon, which does the same job as the plasma cannon, just in more shots, and can also be used against fighters AND can turn a lot better than the dev. what you have in the avenger is a bomber that can fight it's way to a target and back without a fighter escort if needed. i'd love to see a flight of devs last 5 minutes without fighter protection
Delance
Victory, you say?
Well, the question here was not if the Avenger is better, but if it is a "heavy" bomber or a "light bomber". Since it can also function as a fighter - the point that I'm defending all along - it could be, perhaps, better than a dedicated bomber.
In fact, for long I’ve been defending the qualities of multi-role fighters like the Avenger. Heavy fighters that can act as a bomber. Or bombers that can fight like a fighter, if you want - like the Crossbow.
The quintessential multi-role-fighter is the Vindicator. A jack of all trades: atmospheric capable, good fighter, decent torpedo loadout. Master of none? Perhaps.
I didn't even know the Viper Cannons could penetrate shields. It's a strange thing since it negates the entire shield/torpedo dynamic of WCP. The only confed ship that could hurt capships was the Devastator, a heavy bomber with a heavy plasma gun. If you can have a fighter with this capacity, this big bomber is made obsolete, game-wise.
Why? Because AI wingmen sucks. So if you could fight and bomb, there’s no need to protect incompetent AI wingmen. That’s why fighter-bombers are so much better on WC.
But like it says in the SO fiction, bombers/Devastators aren't just to take out the capships and fly around creating pollution while their mates do it out tough, but should also engage in dogfights where possible. SO's argument was the plasma gun and the nice array of missiles. The UE Avenger has got 8FF and 8IR and with its nice gun power, the Viper Gun can do a lot of damage to fighters.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
I'd like to point out that the B-1C's superb stats come at a very high price... most BW bomber pilots will never see one of these things in action. It will never enter mass-production. I'm not sure how many the BW has right now, but it's probably less than 20. If you see one in UE2 it will be... well, it will be one 
. But even that is rather unlikely.
. But even that is rather unlikely.
Actually, if it came to fighting your way in, in WC4, then I'd rather have a Lonbow, heavier, more missiles, heavier guns. There's more than one mission where the 'bow is sent out alone.
So I think that point is moot.
The only advantage the Avenger has over the Longbow is a faster pitch rate and slightly faster speed and afterburner.
In my opinion all the UBW fighters are classified wrong.
The Avernger is more a good bomber.
The Vind is more a heavy fighter.
The Banshee is borderline between medium and light. In my opinion more of a Light Medium Fighter than a Heavy Light Fighter.
Though lets not get started on that again.
So I think that point is moot.
The only advantage the Avenger has over the Longbow is a faster pitch rate and slightly faster speed and afterburner.
In my opinion all the UBW fighters are classified wrong.
The Avernger is more a good bomber.
The Vind is more a heavy fighter.
The Banshee is borderline between medium and light. In my opinion more of a Light Medium Fighter than a Heavy Light Fighter.
Though lets not get started on that again.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Now you've gone and confused me
. Why do you consider a medium fighter to be a light fighter, and a light fighter to be a medium fighter? And does that mean that a light fighter is medium fighter which is a light fighter? Or is it the other way round, that a medium fighter is a light fighter which is a medium fighter?