[Phantom Hoover]

The Izra also appears in Icarus, in a wing with some vahrjadaharas.

[CT27]

Each side seems to get something new each release.  Do you think the GTVA will introduce anything new in the next/final WIH release?

[MatthTheGeek]

Well, at the very least the Tevs still have to properly introduce the Draco.

[Aesaar]

However, they are much better (in terms of sheer speed and power) than the GTVA's older and more common designs. With its current stats the Izra'il also surpasses the Nyx in that regard.

I wouldn't draw any conclusions from the Izra'il's tables until it genuinely appears in a mission.

Each side seems to get something new each release.  Do you think the GTVA will introduce anything new in the next/final WIH release?

Like Matth said, we haven't fought any Dracos yet...

We know that the TEI wave 2 fighters are brand new and state of the art and yet they are pretty equal to the UEF fighters.

But how old are the UEF fighter designs?
And since they were produced during peacetimes, are they really the absolute best the UEF can build? As the wartime configuarions of the Sanctus and Narayana and the Karuna MK2 show, the UEF capital ships have room to be improved, even without a full re-design. Is it the same for the strikecraft?

I assume that the Kent is a fairly recent design, and so were the Rapier and Dart.  First Fleet is notably hesitant about incorporating upgrades, which is why I think they don't use those all that often.  They stick with the tried and true Uhlan and older weapons that have been proven to be dependable.  My guess would be that the Uhlan is about as old as the Perseus.  The Kent's a bit older than the Wave 2 fighters, and was quickly pushed into large-scale production when the war started.  Remember its technical issues?

Also note that upgrading fighters doesn't seem to be as easy as upgrading warships.  Not very many fighters have upgraded versions in either BP or FS2 itself.

[Apollo]

So far we only see the Izra'il in action in just one mission (Her Finest Hour), and they only arrive once you have done most of the mission and there are hardly anymore enemy fighters around, so many would probably miss them. 10 racks of Sidhe will definitely ruin all but the toughest fighters.   Also another unique UEF weapon is the Archer which will easily knock out a Chimera out of the game.

The Apocalypse is a torpedo, the Cyclops is a bomb, so they are not exactly equal. The techroom suggest that torpedoes are designed with range and speed in mind instead of warhead yield. The UEF's Cyclops is the Jackhammer which is more powerful, then there is also the Sledgehammer which is even more powerful than the Helios.

The Cyclops and Jackhammer have been called torpedoes and bombs, suggesting that the terms are interchangeable.

Surprisingly the Sledgehammer deals less sustained damage than the Jackhammer (which is even with the Helios and Warhammer).

[MatthTheGeek]

The Cyclops and Jackhammer have been called torpedoes and bombs, suggesting that the terms are interchangeable.

In BP canon, torpedoes are long-range warheads, that sacrifice warhead size for more fuel, enabling longer range. The longer range is a tactical requirement for warship-mounted launchers, as big ships don't all that often have the occasion to go into knife range of their target. Bombs are more powerful, but require going much closer to your target to be efficient, which is why we have bombers to deliver them.

[General Battuta]

I think that's the general tendency in the definitions, at least, but 'torpedo' hasn't been used rigorously. A Cyclops is a bomb, a torpedo, and a missile!

[Flak]

Back to business, one part that the UEF have an advantage of is that Jackhammers can be loaded into heavy fighters, so they have an edge there in term of adaptability. Sledgehammers can only be carried by bombers just like the Helios is.  UEF bombers are also better because while their bomb bays are reloading, they can continue to pummel enemy capships with their Redeemer and Vajra primaries.

In term of use, torpedoes are meant to deliver more sustained damage while bombs are meant to deliver large amount of burst damage.  Also take note of the different doctrines of torpedo use by the UEF and GTVA. The UEF uses torpedoes both as one of their primary means of damage dealing and to suppress enemy point defenses, allowing their gunships and bombers to close in and do their things to the enemy vessel (disabling, disarming, knock out a subsystem, or just plain damaging it).  The GTVA on the other hand uses torpedoes more as a tactical option, such as for subspace SSM strikes, and they are only carried by their largest ships. It also helps to compensate for the blind spots on their ships.

[MatthTheGeek]

I think that's the general tendency in the definitions, at least, but 'torpedo' hasn't been used rigorously. A Cyclops is a bomb, a torpedo, and a missile!

Cyclops is a bomb, not a torpedo. End of story. Stop trying to confuse people, that's mean.

[Aesaar]

Back to business, one part that the UEF have an advantage of is that Jackhammers can be loaded into heavy fighters, so they have an edge there in term of adaptability. Sledgehammers can only be carried by bombers just like the Helios is.  UEF bombers are also better because while their bomb bays are reloading, they can continue to pummel enemy capships with their Redeemer and Vajra primaries.

On the other hand, GTVA heavy bombers are capable of carrying more banks of heavy bombs than the UEF ones.  In an all-bomb loadout, a Durga carries 12 Jackhammers (I don't think it can even carry Sledgehammers), but a Boanerges carries 9 Helios or 17 Cyclops while being much cheaper.

I'm not saying the Boanerges is better, but it's not bad at all in comparison.

The GTVA doesn't need Redeemers.  Terran bomber doctrine has heavy bombers deployed mainly to destroy Sathanas beam cannons in preparation for a capship strike.  A Time for Heroes is pretty much a textbook example.  GTVA bombers don't need primaries bigger than Maxims because destroying big capital ships isn't their job.  Disarming them is.

Also, the UEF gunships are the size of an Artemis.  They're not just heavy fighters.  The Nyx is less than half their size.

[Black_Yoshi1230]

In an all-bomb loadout, a Durga carries 12 Jackhammers (I don't think it can even carry Sledgehammers), but a Boanerges carries 9 Helios or 17 Cyclops while being much cheaper.

I just checked, as of the current iteration, the Durga can carry two Sledgehammers (secondary bank 3). the Vajradhara can carry four (the bay doors in bank 4), the Lapith can carry one.

[-Norbert-]

Does it really matter all that much how many bombs a bomber can carry, when they rarely survive long enough to fire more than one doubleshot per bay, if even that long?

Letting them unload one volley of bombs and then jump out, like they do with the treb-striking Ares, would be a much smarter way to use them in my opinion.

[Apollo]

Back to business, one part that the UEF have an advantage of is that Jackhammers can be loaded into heavy fighters, so they have an edge there in term of adaptability. Sledgehammers can only be carried by bombers just like the Helios is.  UEF bombers are also better because while their bomb bays are reloading, they can continue to pummel enemy capships with their Redeemer and Vajra primaries.

On the other hand, GTVA heavy bombers are capable of carrying more banks of heavy bombs than the UEF ones.  In an all-bomb loadout, a Durga carries 12 Jackhammers (I don't think it can even carry Sledgehammers), but a Boanerges carries 9 Helios or 17 Cyclops while being much cheaper.

Yes, but as Norbert pointed out payload doesn't mean anything unless the bomber can survive long enough to use it up. And besides, bombs can be shot down. Redeemer rounds can't.

I'm not saying the Boanerges is better, but it's not bad at all in comparison.

Sure, If you factor in its much lower cost.

The GTVA doesn't need Redeemers.  Terran bomber doctrine has heavy bombers deployed mainly to destroy Sathanas beam cannons in preparation for a capship strike.  A Time for Heroes is pretty much a textbook example.  GTVA bombers don't need primaries bigger than Maxims because destroying big capital ships isn't their job.  Disarming them is.

No, they don't need Redeemers. However, they could use an similar railgun (or perhaps beam) that doesn't use expensive antimatter. As their Cyclops torpedoes show, the GTVA is perfectly capable of making powerful thermonuclear warheads*, even if they aren't as strong as the UEF's Jackhammer.

As I said before, primaries have a huge advantage because they can't be shot down. Given enough sustained hull and subsystem damage, they could entirely replace torpedoes.

*Assuming I haven't missed some obscure footnote in some mission briefing somewhere.

Also, the UEF gunships are the size of an Artemis.  They're not just heavy fighters.  The Nyx is less than half their size.

Yeah, I always found that interesting. The Uriel and the Izra'il (particularly the latter) are basically bombers with unusual amounts of primary firepower and maneuverability.

[Aesaar]

What does a Redeemer equivalent give GTVA bombers that a couple more Maxims doesn't give them, in light of those bombers' intended purpose?  Redeemer equivalent adds new logistical concerns, but unlike most of the GTVA's other weapons, it wouldn't be modular enough to be used on anything other than the ships made to use it. 

You want to help bombers survive longer?  Give them more speed, give them turrets, or give them maneuverability and another bank for an anti-fighter weapon.  Terran bombers don't need to be like UEF bombers.  Redeemer-equivalents don't help them do their task enough to make the downsides worth it.  If they build a new heavy bomber to replace the Boa, they're better off just making it capable of carrying more Maxims, giving it better engines, and giving it 3 or 4 turrets.

The Vasudans might make one, but the Terrans don't need it.

[Apollo]

What does a Redeemer equivalent give GTVA bombers that a couple more Maxims doesn't give them, in light of those bombers' intended purpose?

The Maxim deals plenty of hull and subsystem damage, but it can't destroy capital ships. A weapon that solved that problem (Redeemer equivalent) would give the GTVA a powerful anti-capital weapon that could be fired outside the range of turret defenses without being shot down mid-flight.

Redeemer equivalent adds new logistical concerns, but unlike most of the GTVA's other weapons, it wouldn't be modular enough to be used on anything other than the ships made to use it. 

I fail to see why it couldn't be mounted on things like the Boanerges and Artemis, but whatever. It would still be worth it.

You want to help bombers survive longer?  Give them more speed, give them turrets, or give them maneuverability and another bank for an anti-fighter weapon.

Those are viable options. As is giving them a weapon that doesn't require them to put themselves within the range of enemy point-defenses.

Terran bombers don't need to be like UEF bombers. Redeemer-equivalents don't help them do their task enough to make the downsides worth it.  If they build a new heavy bomber to replace the Boa, they're better off just making it capable of carrying more Maxims, giving it better engines, and giving it 3 or 4 turrets.

The Vasudans might make one, but the Terrans don't need it.

They're better off giving it a primary weapon that can actually take down corvettes and destroyers. No amount of Maxims can accomplish that task.

[niffiwan]

Yeah, but as Aesaar said, Terran doctrine has warships delivering the killing blow to enemy capships.  Bombers are designed to disable/cripple, not destroy.

[Apollo]

Yeah, but as Aesaar said, Terran doctrine has warships delivering the killing blow to enemy capships.  Bombers are designed to disable/cripple, not destroy.

It's still important for bombers to be able to destroy them when allied warships can't get to them. Otherwise you have the possibility of a damaged enemy corvette fleeing and surviving because no warships can chase it down and no strikecraft can finish it off.

[niffiwan]

Despite not being optimised for it, I'm sure Terran bombers can still "finish off" capships (which presumably are already damaged/crippled).  E.g. HFH & the Serenity, which is toast unless you (or your wingmen) intervene.

Also, Shivans (which are probably the enemy that Terran doctrine is mostly based around) don't exactly flee very often.

[Apollo]

Despite not being optimised for it, I'm sure Terran bombers can still "finish off" capships (which presumably are already damaged/crippled).  E.g. HFH & the Serenity, which is toast unless you (or your wingmen) intervene.

Of course. I was just pointing out why the Maxim's inability to destroy capships is a serious flaw.

Also, Shivans (which are probably the enemy that Terran doctrine is mostly based around) don't exactly flee very often.

The Shivans constantly switch up their tactics. In a hypothetical Third Great War they might care a lot more about the preservation of their warships.

[General Battuta]

The Shivans constantly switch up their tactics. In a hypothetical Third Great War they might care a lot more about the preservation of their warships.

Does the GTVA know this?