[BlackDove]

By the way, Ulysses > Myrmidon.

Myrmidon was (and this is solely my take on it), a balanced experiment with three secondary banks, and primary banks to match the Hercules.

Where it loses is the hull but the offset is its maneouveribility.

Apollo was most assuredly used sometime after the Great War, but I'd assume they were all later either

a) Scrapped. As in, GTVA decided that your life was in danger if you flew one.

b) They were all destroyed or damaged, and it wasn't profitable to repair them, considering their uselessness.

[Moonsword]

Or they were used for second-line purposes, like trainers, or sold off to mercenaries, particularly once the newer fighters were deployed in sufficient numbers to replace them.

And they aren't that bad.  I'll admit, they're not the greatest fighters, but come on, they're not that bad, either.

[BlackDove]

Sorry, there is no median here. Once better got constructed, the old was trash. If I were the GTA or PVN, I'd use the Anubis/Apollo strictly for crap routine missions, such as the afformentioned, "banging of the asteroids" out of the way..... and that's basically it.

We can all see the WW2 airplanes in the museums today, but did you ever wonder why the regular navy today doesn't fly it anymore?

Same thing, just that I'm talking in slightly larger extremes.

[Kosh]

By the way, Ulysses > Myrmidon.

Myrmidon was (and this is solely my take on it), a balanced experiment with three secondary banks, and primary banks to match the Hercules.

I think you're dyslexic or something and meant Myrmidon>Ulysses.

While the Myrmidon isn't quite as manueverable, it still has better armor/shields, better secondaries, better primaries, and it is also much better suited for knocking off capitalships because it (for some wierd reason) can carry Helios bombs.

[Mongoose]

BlackDove, no offense or anything, but have you ever played all the way through FS1?  I think your memory of the Apollo from the first few missions is clouding your judgment of it when it's loaded out with shields and proper weapons.  In the FS1 mission The Big Bang, where you had to protect the Faustus-class GTS Asimov that was working on Project Tsunami, had you forced into flying an Apollo rigged out, I believe, with Avengers and MX-50s.  The first time I flew this mission, with the memory of how crappy the Apollo was without shields in the first few missions still fresh in my mind, I was amazed by how good it felt to fly.  It could take quite a pounding, far more than either the Valkyrie or the Ulysses, and its maneuverability is pretty good.  I can't see how you can even compare it with the Anubis; that damn thing doesn't even have an afterburner. I couldn't stand flying it in Shrouding the Light for that very reason, coupled with its incredibly weak hull.  In contrast, the Apollo looks more like a Herc.

You're also ignoring the fact that the Valkyrie, Herc, and Ulysses were designed for very specific roles:  the Valkyrie is a rocket with guns on the front and next to no armor, the Ulysses has a paper-thin hull and turns like a Ferarri, and the Herc moves like a brick but can dish out massive amounts of firepower.  All of those ships are great in their own roles, but the Apollo is the only all-purpose fighter in FS1.  I can't see how you can say that cruiser turrets pose no threat to a Valkyrie; I know I've been roughed up by them on numerous occasions when trying to take one down.  Give me the choice, and I'd go for the Apollo any day for cruiser assault, provided that the Herc is not an option.  In the same way, I'd choose the Apollo over the Herc every time for flying intercept if I didn't have a Valkyrie available.  

I can easily see how the Terran blocs could continue using the Apollo far into the Reconstruction era, and I also think that most of the GTA probably still used it during the Great War; why else would there be a wing lying around on the Galatea for you to fly during The Big Bang?  Remember, the only reason you got to fly all of the shiny new fighters like the Ulysses and Valkyries was because you were supposed to be a top pilot; I'm sure most GTA pilots were still flying Apollos on occasion when the Lucifer was destroyed.  Hell, I know I'd even  take it over a few of the FS2 fighters (Serapis, I'm looking at you ).

[BlackDove]

Originally posted by Kosh



I think you're dyslexic or something and meant Myrmidon>Ulysses.

While the Myrmidon isn't quite as manueverable, it still has better armor/shields, better secondaries, better primaries, and it is also much better suited for knocking off capitalships because it (for some wierd reason) can carry Helios bombs.

I was talking in terms of Ulysses vs. Myrmidon.

Ulysses is always the winner.

The Myrmidon itself as a Helios carrier is useless if you're talking normal difficulties, such as hard or insane. Frankly, I'd rather be flying the Ursa for that one.

Mongoose, the fact that the Apollo is a "jack of all trades - master of none" does not always mean that it is flyable material. It just means that it's a piece of crap compared to the other fighters that do the job correctly.

It's an old design, with an old perspective, and it was culled for a reason. It doesn't work.

Also, I'll mention that the Hercules is more or less "all purpose" if we're going to follow that train of thought.

[Boomer]

Mongoose, the fact that the Apollo is a "jack of all trades - master of none" does not always mean that it is flyable material. It just means that it's a piece of crap compared to the other fighters that do the job correctly.

Whoa, I'm not an Apollo fanatic, but I'll have to jump in on that one.  The Apollo isn't really a fighter with a single purpose, I can see now that I've taken the time to fly it.  It's, well, it's the vanilla fighter.  That's the best way I can say it.  It's the only fighter that I've ever flown that flows with the player.  In the Apollo, one isn't kicking ass thanks to technology, one is kicking ass because the pilot knows how to kick ass.  The role of the Apollo is determined by who flies it and their personal style.  One person can use the Apollo as an interceptor, while another might use it for assault.

I don't use it because there are other fighters that more fit my style, but lacking anything else, the Apollo is a great design.

In fact, I don't have a problem with the design at all in fact.  My problem lies in the Statistics and Weapons.

[BlackDove]

Originally posted by Boomer  One person can use the Apollo as an interceptor, while another might use it for assault. [/B]

And both of those people will lose to anyone else flying anything else.

End of discussion to be honest.

[IceFire]

No idea how this started.

The Apollo I see as an average fighter that has quite a bit of flexibility.  The draws for the Apollo after shields become available is its flexible armament loadout.  With 4 guns, and 2 large banks of missiles, its fairly adaptable to be a cruiser killer or a fighter.  Its not great...but its pretty good considering its the oldest of the GTA fighters you fly in FS1.

The Ulysses is quite a bit different.  Its more of a straight fighter with speed and manuerverability as its key attributes.  Great ship but not really a cruiser killer.

The Myrmidon is more in the Apollo vein but I think much better and more adaptable.  The three banks of missiles and 6 guns means its good at killing cruisers and it can carry three different types of secondary armament.  This is the sort of ship you send in when you aren't sure of what you really need.

Perseus is the evolution of the Valkyrie as interceptors...and the Hercules is just a really darned cool heavy fighter (and the Mark II is just as cool).

As far as the ships from Earth go in BWO....there are lots of Apollos, Athenas, and Valkyries around because of many years of political strife and the continuing use of these ships.  

Also keep in mind that while the GTVA had to innovate to try and match the Shivan threat (or percieved threat) and also to integrate with the Vasudans, the Sol system was cutoff and the Shivan threat was sort of a sideshow in comparison.

Need drives innovation.

[IceFire]

I don't think that the EC can stand a chance against the GTVA because not only does the GTVA out number and out class them, but they have Golgathas and the EC has nothing like that.

Thats what you think

[Ace]

Keep in mind that Sol *was* the economic and cultural hub of the GTA.

Despite all of the factionalization, they were in much better shape than the Terran Blocs.

Sol technology has taken a different path than GTVA tech. ...and for the most part we're avoiding the sillytech and uberships seen in Machina Terra or Inferno.

[Mad Bomber]

I dunno. Delta Ser and Beta Aquilae were pretty much the only Terran colonies not heavily ravaged, and even they had a sizable number of Shivans and/or HOL in them at various points in time. (I am of course excluding Luyten, since my account of events there are likely to be different from other campaign writers'.)

I'd put more money on even an emasculated GTA than I would with any of the Blocs save perhaps the Antarans.

I mean, the Luytenese had crap systems (3 red dwarfs -- four, technically, since Luyten's a binary), the Adharans were in the middle of nowhere and had no infrastructure at all, and the Regulans were a syndicate (infer corruption and an economic focus rather than military).

But yeah, I agree with you Ace, Sol would probably have done far better than the various Terran colonies would have on their own prior to the GTVA's formation.

[tangent]

The reason I say this is, it's really the Vasudans who have been the economic driving force of the GTVA IMO. Even with the destruction of Vas Prime, those who evacuated (presumably those who could afford to get out fast) brought their cash with them. The result was a lot of Vasudan money to invest, a lot of which ended up in the Capellan and Adharan sectors which had to build everything from scratch.

And of course investment in the traditional Vasudan sector wasn't as safe a bet with the HOL rampaging around -- besides, there was lots of cheap Terran labor and open land.

Whereas, by contrast, the vast majority of Terran cash was in banks in Sol, especially after the decimation of most of the outer colonies, thus likely impoverishing large numbers of Terrans and creating an endemic crime problem.

[/tangent]

Okay, I'm done. Proceed to massage your temples for relief.

[Ace]

The Regulus Syndicate could refer to Anarcho-Syndicism (ala Chomsky).

So it's either a failed anarchist state, or a failed "mob" state considering that they joined the NTF due to resentment thanks to their poor economy.

Also on Vasudan colonization, (unfortunately forgot his name) who started the FSURP (the original, real one, not this new-fangled one with this revisionist TVWP campaign stuff) mentioned that Vasudans colonizing very conservatively seems to match their behavior.

They'd find a node, scout the system thoroughly, and then systematically colonize resources en masse. Having fewer, but more densely populated systems with specialized colonies. (based off of the limited resources of Vasuda Prime forcing a similar mindset)

The end result would be their being less centralized than the Terrans, who had the main hub of Earth and a sprawl of dozens of other, small population, systems.

[Cooked Salmon]

IIRC, the Vasudans only colonized are Altair, Aldebarran, Alpha Centauri, Deneb, Vasuda, and Vega.  All those systems are pretty strategically placed.  Altair, Vasuda, and Vega all have big shipyards (military and likely civilian as well) too, so they would be moneymaking industrial centres for the Vasudans.

The Terrans had nearly 30 systems colonized, and the majority of those where nothing but backwaters.  Places like Tau Sigma, Ross 128, and Betelgeuse would become economic pits without the support of Earth.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Ace
Also on Vasudan colonization, (unfortunately forgot his name) who started the FSURP (the original, real one, not this new-fangled one with this revisionist TVWP campaign stuff) mentioned that Vasudans colonizing very conservatively seems to match their behavior.

TVWP isn't revisionist because there's nothing to revise.

Rest assured we're keeping all the canon facts in mind when planning our campaigns.  This includes the differences between Terran and Vasudan colonization behavior.