[MatthTheGeek]

I'm not exactly sure putting the fate of the Akula on a roulette was a smart move. The death of Akula via SSM was the best possible way to introduce this new and deadly weapon of the Tev arsenal to the player. It nearly made me jizz my pants when I saw it the first time.

Now, 75% of new players won't get that introduction, and I truly think it's a shame.

[Darius]

Whatever the merits of the roulette system are, it's been like that since release. However there's room for debate as to whether the mission should be changed so that the Akula survives to the SSM strike every time.

[Qent]

Strange. I always lost it to the SSMs.

[Jellyfish]

Whatever the merits of the roulette system are, it's been like that since release. However there's room for debate as to whether the mission should be changed so that the Akula survives to the SSM strike every time.

And what would kill it? Serkr? Because it has to be lost, doesn't it?

[MatthTheGeek]

Whatever the merits of the roulette system are, it's been like that since release. However there's room for debate as to whether the mission should be changed so that the Akula survives to the SSM strike every time.

And what would kill it? Serkr? Because it has to be lost, doesn't it?

I think he meant survives long enough for the Tevs to send the SSM strike to finish her off.

[Jellyfish]

Indeed. Didn't read the 'to' in the sentence.

[Raiden]

I too much preferred the Akula getting torn apart by the SSM strike. Until I played the latest version I had no idea it could die any other way, in fact I assumed the point of that event was to show the player exactly how this new tactic worked. One of the most dramatic and cool parts of the game to be honest.

[Qent]

Agreed. Although I always wondered why the GTVA never used a zillion SSMs at once ever again.

[MatthTheGeek]

SSMs are triggered by TAG-C impacts. The Akula was swarmed by SSMs because it was swarmed by TAG-Cs in the first place. I don't think it happens to that extent anywhere else in the campaign.

[The E]

If it would have happened, any missions with SSM strikes in them would be unplayable. SSMs are great tools, but using them too often would make the game really really frustrating.

[X3N0-Life-Form]

Yeah, they basically allow a fighter to fire swarms of hard-to-intercept bombs at a target (usually a capital ship).

[Qent]

Ah yes, that would have been enraging.

But "The Tevs could kill all your caps at any time, but they won't because of balance" really isn't a very satisfying explanation.

[Jellyfish]

Is 'SSM strikes are so expensive or logistically difficult you can only use them against strategically important targets' a better one?
I'm sure the Solaris, Eris and Toutatis have a SSM strike with their names on it.

The only other fault this weapon has is the initial delivery. Getting in range to fire the TAG-C is suicide against the flak screens of UEF warships.
Solution? TAG warhead on a Trebuchet.

[Qent]

A little. But AFAIK the GTVA only pays for SSMs that reach stage 5. Oh wait, then there's the fighters that don't make it, the fighters' time, and the AWACS' time. Hrm, maybe.

The rate of fire of the Atreus' launchers might perhaps limit the effectiveness of SSMs, but that still leaves Collateral Damage as an upper bound. Maybe if the Atreus had to provide SSM support to many battles at once, then that would limit it further; although it's never made obvious that SSMs are being used anywhere but the current mission.

It still seemed way out of proportion to all other SSM strikes in the campaign.

[Liberator]

Well, logically an SSM would be many times larger than a standard torpedo, given the yield and the need of a subspace drive, they'd be gigantic for a missile.  The size of a fighter at least.  It'd be akin to tossing a WW2 era light destroyer x8 or 10.  That's a lot of hardware and it means they aren't gonna have a functionally unlimited supply of them, as opposed to whatever the cyclops equivalent is.

[-Norbert-]

Even the Narayanas Apocalypse torpedoes are bigger than most fighters and bombers, so I guess the SSMs are even bigger.

[Commander Zane]

I think they use the Eos model, so they would be smaller.

[Qent]

SSMs are the same size as standard ship-to-ship torpedoes because they have to be fired from the same launchers. The subspace drive cuts into their payload, which is why they do less damage. Except that they don't, so never mind.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

What question is that. Hard or Insane are the only difficulties worth being played.

If that was the case, there wouldn't be five difficulty levels or the need to have the "same turret cooldown" flag.

[MatthTheGeek]

Not my fault if expected players to suck. That doesn't mean today's campaign makers have to