[SaltyWaffles]

True, but how many of those are there? The Artemis, Kulas, and...is that it?

Sekhmet and Thoth or nu-Thoth. Vasudans could show up in the rest of WiH after all.

Okay, true. Though the main point still applies: it would be an easy task to do a minor edit to the pofs and tables. If time is an issue, I would be happy to take care of it if the dev team would want it done in the first place. 

[Mars]

It fundamentally ****s with the balance of the rest of BP and will probably never happen.

[Klaustrophobia]

more than that, it changes a fundamental mechanic of the FS universe.  should only be applied to new fighters if their design calls for it.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, that would break everything so fundamentally I wouldn't know where to start fixing it. And it'd render the FS2 campaign unplayable with BP selected as a mod, which is a shame because we always thought that was cool.

More than that, I think it would make the game's balance much less interesting and create fewer options.

[Black_Yoshi1230]

Yeah, that would break everything so fundamentally I wouldn't know where to start fixing it. And it'd render the FS2 campaign unplayable with BP selected as a mod, which is a shame because we always thought that was cool.

I have actually done that once with Heaven assets... while I noticed in The King's Gambit you altered the Art-DH to be a more viable platform, I just have to wonder on who changed the Bakha table for Bearbaiting/High Noon (because oddly enough, despite if engines are maxed out, you're supposed to only up your burn recharge in retail, but I noticed top speed increased). Needless to say, some missions became more challenging (the Vasudan transfer arc) whilst other songs missions became slightly easier.

True, but how many of those are there? The Artemis, Kulas, and...is that it?

Sekhmet and Thoth or nu-Thoth. Vasudans could show up in the rest of WiH after all.

Okay, true. Though the main point still applies: it would be an easy task to do a minor edit to the pofs and tables. If time is an issue, I would be happy to take care of it if the dev team would want it done in the first place. 

If you touch the Sekhmet, you're going to basically wreck every fun aspect I enjoyed in other mods and break the balance against the Ursa and ultimately the tough-as-nails Seraphim. (Seriously, I don't want to see the day it ends up being bastardized and becoming the Vasudan F-15E.) Bombers are bombers, fighters are fighters. Let's not virtually encroach on modern-day versatility/multi-role capability.

[General Battuta]

What became more challenging? IIRC the only changes that should hurt the player are fixes to Nahema top speed.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

Yeah, my quick experiments using BP assets in the FS2 campaign made everything piss-easy. The Shivan ships just aren't good enough to go toe-to-toe with ships from BP, GTVA or UEF, although the latter is more because of the fighter/bomber emphasis and would be completely unsustainable given what little information we have about the UEF's logistics. Still...it was pretty fun to play "Bearbaiting" with a Uriel. Disarming the Sathanas couldn't have taken more than a minute.

[Black_Yoshi1230]

What became more challenging? IIRC the only changes that should hurt the player are fixes to Nahema top speed.

Fury Maras and Dragons that destroyed all my Tauret wingmen when you try to interdict Bosch once and for all. (Seriously, I don't let anyone fly the Serapis, ever. Though I guess that's my fault. I haven't tested Fury Horus.)

[Mars]

Fury AI shouldn't be applied to the main campaign, it needs to be flagged on in the individual mission IIRC.

EDIT:
There should be some modest changes to the Artemis DH. . .  bomber turrets don't fire through hulls anymore. . . most of the Shivan bombers are a little faster . . .


ACTUALLY the single biggest balance changer I think will be that ALL turrets are now set to "check hull" (not fire through the ship). This makes the Leviathan, and the Cain for example, much less dangerous with their AAA turrets.

[General Battuta]

I believe some of the Fury AI stuff will still apply.

[Scotty]

I'm pretty sure the rate of fire of all enemy fighters is significantly increased, since BP removes the rate of fire scaling with ai-class and difficulty, if I'm not very much mistaken.

[General Battuta]

ROF still increases with AI class, that's part of why Balls of Steele is so badass.

[Scotty]

Difficulty, then.  Of course, I could still be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure the ROF scaling with difficulty was changed or removed.

[X3N0-Life-Form]

iirc, the random refire rate thingy is only removed in BP AI classes (BP-Captain and so forth), and you would probably need to select the BP AI_profile on a per mission basis for BP's AI changes to fully apply.

[SaltyWaffles]

More than that, I think it would make the game's balance much less interesting and create fewer options.

How do you figure? (Not saying you're wrong or anything like that; just curious about the possibilities that I might be missing).

[niffiwan]

As I see it, with no fire rate penalty there's no advantage to a single quad bank over two twin banks.  With a fire rate penalty, there is.  Therefore it creates an interesting choice, choose a superior ROF with the quad bank, or more versatility with two twin banks. 

[SaltyWaffles]

As I see it, with no fire rate penalty there's no advantage to a single quad bank over two twin banks.  With a fire rate penalty, there is.  Therefore it creates an interesting choice, choose a superior ROF with the quad bank, or more versatility with two twin banks.

...or you weigh the benefits of having 4, say, Prom S's rather than 2 Prom S's and 2 Balors. That way it's a choice between weapons, rather than the (kind of arbitrary) primary bank setup of the craft.

[General Battuta]

The choice between linking fire or firing individual banks would go away. And it would completely **** over all the ships that currently have no ability to link multiple banks.

[niffiwan]

As I see it, with no fire rate penalty there's no advantage to a single quad bank over two twin banks.  With a fire rate penalty, there is.  Therefore it creates an interesting choice, choose a superior ROF with the quad bank, or more versatility with two twin banks.

...or you weigh the benefits of having 4, say, Prom S's rather than 2 Prom S's and 2 Balors. That way it's a choice between weapons, rather than the (kind of arbitrary) primary bank setup of the craft.

Sorry, I don't get it   With a linked-bank-fire-penalty, and a ship w/ 2x twin banks, you still have a choice to make between 4x Prom S & 2x Prom S + 2x Balors?  You're choosing between "shock & awe" snapshot firepower + easier aiming/consistent weapon speeds (assuming Prom S & Balor are different speeds, I haven't checked), vs superior bomb-intercept/spray & pray firepower + lower power usage?  i.e. you're still choosing between weapons on their relative merits? 

Whereas removing the link-bank-fire-penalty, for all ships that were not designed with this setting in mind (i.e. everything in BP2), makes many ships sub-optimal choices in all situations.  e.g. Battuta's point about ships than can't fire-link banks, & mine about any ship with a quad bank. 

[Crybertrance]

Excuse me for my noob-ness, but what exactly is the "link-bank-fire-penalty"?