[-Norbert-]

For shooting down enemy warheads (and strikecraft) the Solaris comes equiped with salvo-firing Point Defence turrets, in addition to the burst flaks.
And my bet would also be on the Solaris. Those Gattlers don't just do subsystem damage, they also do quite a bit of hull damage. I havn't looked at the stats, but from what I saw ingame, gattlers seem to be much better anti-ship weapons than pulse turrets and on top of that the Solaris has more gattlers than the Raynor has pulses.

Netreba wasn't worried about the torpedoes being jammed, because he would have lost the fight against the Hood. Without reinforcements the Hood would have been doomed against a torpedoless Solaris, much less against that AND two Karunas. The reson why he wanted this fight to end as quickly as possible was, that every second they stayed there, the chances of Tev reinforments showing up increased.

[Mars]

Eeh.  The Solaris is impressive, but I think it relies on its torpedoes more than GTVA ships rely on their beams.  At the end of Aristeia, the J.E. Hoover jams the Toutatis' torpedo targeting, and it was pretty much a sitting duck.

We know a Solaris kills a Raynor 1-vs-1, but I'm really curious about how a fight between a beam-jammed Raynor and a torpedo-jammed Solaris would turn out. The Raynor has its slash beams, its pulse cannons, and its Eos torpedoes.  Apart from its Apocalypse torpedo spam, what effective anti-capital weapons does the Solaris have?  A few gattler turrets? 

I really should try that out.

It was also hinted by Battuta that an actual battle between the two in BP would not result in a be a completely one sided fight either; remember that the ships are essentially as tough as the mission demands.

[Aesaar]

I ran it 5 times, and it isn't even a contest.  The Raynor kills the Solaris with between 65 and 85% health remaining.  With no beams whatsoever, it's a bit closer, but still a clear victory for the Raynor, being left with 30 - 60% health.  Pulse Cannons are definitely better than Gattler turrets.  The two ships were arranged side by side, and on the last 2 rounds, the Solaris was rolled 90 degrees.  Beam-wise, the Raynor only had one TerSlashBlue and one SBlue firing.

I'll add that not a single Eos managed to hit.  Those point defense guns are quite effective. 

The results are similar if you replace the Raynor with a Titan.  Bit closer, though.

The Titan actually does better than the Raynor if there's no jamming at all, provided it's actually in a position to use its frontal beams.  They'll often kill each other, with the Solaris' last volley killing the Titan from beyond the grave.   The Titan will typically survive if the Solaris' first missile barrage fails to knock out a BBlue.

I'm probably saying things the rest of you already know, but hopefully I'm contributing something.

Mars: oh, I know.  A test in a vacuum like this is already pretty flawed, because it doesn't take into account fighter screens and other variables.  Who wants a fair fight?

MatththeGeek: Perhaps the Diomedes is more expensive.  Wouldn't surprise me, since it's a pretty high-tech ship.  My point is that it's a much better anti-ship, er, ship, despite being 2/3 the size, and still has a fighter bay.  Whether the UEF military is more efficient with the resources it has is up for debate, but the former doesn't preclude the latter.  The UEF could be more efficient with its capital ship designs, but GTVA ones are generally superior, performance-wise.

-Norbert-: I agree.  I doubt Calder was really worried about a couple TerSlashes.  My point was that the Solaris can have its torpedoes jammed, and when that happens, it's a sitting duck for anything with some decent firepower.  Who's to say the GTVA won't do it in the future?

[-Norbert-]

Laportes trigger finger says they won't succed for long even if they try it

[Liberator]

Hmm, the difference between beam jamming and torpedo jamming is that torpedo's can be dumbfired.  I doubt a beam can be.  Particularly if they are at knife-fight range.

[-Norbert-]

Not so much particularly, but pretty much only at knife-fight range, due to the way the launchers are positioned on the Solaris. They fire straight up and down, so they could only hit if the enemy is "above" or "below" it.

[MatthTheGeek]

Dumb-firing VLS torpedoes isn't exactly convenient. That wouldn't be the case of multipart-mounted Eos/Supernova launchers on Raynors/Titans, but the UEF has other jamming priorities on those ships anyway, right ?

[Aesaar]

Hmm, the difference between beam jamming and torpedo jamming is that torpedo's can be dumbfired.  I doubt a beam can be.  Particularly if they are at knife-fight range.

Serkr Team fired just fine in Aristeia.  Delenda Est also showed standard beams can lock on to TAG beacons through jamming, and there's no UEF equivalent for those.

[-Norbert-]

Just because we didn't see it in WiH1 doesn't mean they don't have them, or can't make them.
Also there was only this one instance in the whole campaign, where the GTVA jammed UEF weapons, so it's likely they got caught off-guard, just like the Serkr team got caught off guard when the UEF jammed their beams for the first time.

[Insomniac34]

I have a problem where when my Maul runs out of energy, the energy recharges but the weapon stops working for the remainder of the mission. Any ideas?

thanks!

[The E]

This is a known (and fixed) bug in 3.6.14RC3. Revert to 3.6.14RC2, or wait for 3.6.14 final.

[knossosfs2]

I am having trouble with BP2: I get a huge error message whenever I try to load the campaign. For example, it says "Invalid subsystem name," or <no module>!<no symbol>. Please help!

[KyadCK]

I am having trouble with BP2: I get a huge error message whenever I try to load the campaign. For example, it says "Invalid subsystem name," or <no module>!<no symbol>. Please help!

Give us a Debug log.

Welcome to HLP!

[CT27]

Also there was only this one instance in the whole campaign, where the GTVA jammed UEF weapons, so it's likely they got caught off-guard, just like the Serkr team got caught off guard when the UEF jammed their beams for the first time.

If the UEF can figure out a way to 'override' the GTVA's torpedo jamming, then it might also be possible for the GTVA to figure out a way to 'override' the UEF's beam jamming I would think.

[-Norbert-]

I agree. It might end up as jamming/anti-jamming contests between the AWACS', or a match of "the first to lose the AWACS, loses the battle".
In a way the GTVA already did override the jamming in Delenda Est, by "painting" the UEF AWACS and enabling the Carthage to hit it. Not a perfect soluion, but it worked.

[MatthTheGeek]

It's not a "it might", it's already the case. Whatever is the process involved in beam jamming and torpedo jamming, it belongs to electronic warfare in a similar way to communication jamming, as strongly hinted by the ingame dialogues. And indeed, the Hood and its AWACS manages to briefly break through the UEF beam jamming in Aristeia if your cruisers aren't destroyed fast enough.

[Dilmah G]

Well with the advent of things like Home On Jam capabilities with targeting systems, ECM as a countermeasure is only ever a temporary one.

[Klaustrophobia]

isn't home on jam rather easily defeated by cycling ECM off and  back on?

[Dilmah G]

I'd assume so, but any drop in ECM cover provided by say, an AWACS would allow weapons that require a lock for employment, like beam weapons etc a chance to acquire lock. I don't know if it's possible to cycle the status of ECM fast enough to nullify HOJ targeting, but if it is, there's evidence like MTG brought up earlier that the GTVA may be able to break through the jamming through sustained effort of some sort.

Either way, I don't really know enough to comment definitely on the issue but I'm sure for at least some types of jamming that HOJ is an option, if albeit one that's easily countered.

[knossosfs2]

I am having trouble with BP2: I get a huge error message whenever I try to load the campaign. For example, it says "Invalid subsystem name," or <no module>!<no symbol>. Please help!

Give us a Debug log.

Welcome to HLP!

Here is my debug log

[attachment deleted by a ninja]