[TopAce]

The destruction of an Orion is not a horrible defeat for the Terrans, it is a major victory for the Vasudans. The Amun is simply too slow and without shields, it has little use. Consider that bombers did have no shields. Even if they had bombs, the explosion of the bombs would certainly kill the bomber itself. Neither does GTA or PVE command want it, so they rather did not develop heavy bombs. Have you ever tried to hack the Good Luck mission and arm the bombers with ORIGINAL Harbringers?
I would say this is the reason why pre-FS1-era ships do not have powerful bombs. I haven't even talked about warhead capacity, older warheads are PROBABLY bigger and the warhead capacity was PROBABLY lower.

What do you think about this?

[aldo_14]

A horrible defeat for the Terrans is a major victory for the Vasudans, BTW.  Kind of implied by the whole Terran-Vasudan war scenario.

[karajorma]

It was a pity to spoil your post by arguing semantics like that TopAce.

The rest of the post actually makes quite a good point. Since these bombs would have been launched from the small capacity of the Athena they would almost certainly have sacrificed weapons yield for being tougher or maybe faster so that there was less chance of killing the ship that launched them.

[aldo_14]

The design of the Ursa to specifically carry a new heavy warhead would support that, too.   As does the Athena tech description.

[Akalabeth Angel]

I never said the Amun has inflicted a pathetic number of defeats on the Terrans. I said that its kill ratio is pathetic if that is it's main purpose. I happen to believe that the main purpose of a bomber is to tackle weaker capships and disarm destroyers. Under those circumstances 3 kills is an impressive kill ratio but if you're saying that bombers are meant to kill Orions then it is pathetic and I stand by that usage of the word.

Yes those three strikes were crippling defeats for the terrans but they were crippling defeats precisely because bombers rarely kill capships.

     I don't see why a bomber has to be designed to kill any type of warship, and I've never argued that an Amun was made to kill an Orion specifically. A bomber is designed to kill ships, whether they be Poseidons, Leviathans or Orions.  Save apparently for the Ursa, but that's because of the bomb it carries and the fact that'd be overkill versus other ships. If the Amun is comparable to the Medusa and the Medusa's description says "Suitable for any size target." I'd say that the Amun is designed, in part (not its main purpose) to kill Orions. And I don't believe that three Orions would be killed because the commanders haven't sent them to do that job. Weapons are designed to disable, and weapons are designed to kill. You're not sending Amuns to disable an Orion when they're not carrying Stillettos or the equivelant.


     But anyways the origins of this argument lie in the fact that I believed the GTA or PVN should have anti-ship bombs prior to the Tsunami because it didn't make sense that the Athena only carries Stillettos. You've just said that the pre-shivan bombers are designed to destroy Cruisers, but if the Athena can only carry Stillettos and the only anti-warship action of the Athena is to disable a Cain it doesn't exactly fit into your argument either. Therefore there should be a smaller bomb that can be used on the Athena, as I stated in my first post:

It was a nice "bomber", but at the time it couldn't carry any bombs. Which was kind of odd. The only thing it could really carry in FS1 was stilettos. I hope TVWP is rectifying that issue.

       It seems to me that you were the one that wasn't reading my post.

[TopAce]

A note to the Medusa being suitable for any size targets: It is written because it actually could carry some firepower with Tsunamis and they were not as slow as the Amun, so it is better against fighters.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Amuns can carry Tsunamis

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
I don't see why a bomber has to be designed to kill any type of warship, and I've never argued that an Amun was made to kill an Orion specifically. A bomber is designed to kill ships, whether they be Poseidons, Leviathans or Orions.  

Nope. That's simply not true. That's why I gave you the example of the Bahka and the juggernaut. A Bahka is not designed to kill such large ships because there is no canon ship designed to kill such large ships.

Every ship has a role. If you say that ships are simply designed to kill a certain class why are there interceptors, space superiority fighters etc? After all they are all designed to kill fighters?

Ships have a role. The role of the Athena was to disable capships and kill smaller craft. I see nothing that shows the Athena was meant to kill Orions.

Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
If the Amun is comparable to the Medusa and the Medusa's description says "Suitable for any size target." I'd say that the Amun is designed, in part (not its main purpose) to kill Orions.

The medusa had shields. If pre-FS1 ships had shields too I'd stop arguing the point. Shields make all the difference to the role of the craft.

Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
But anyways the origins of this argument lie in the fact that I believed the GTA or PVN should have anti-ship bombs prior to the Tsunami because it didn't make sense that the Athena only carries Stillettos. You've just said that the pre-shivan bombers are designed to destroy Cruisers, but if the Athena can only carry Stillettos and the only anti-warship action of the Athena is to disable a Cain it doesn't exactly fit into your argument either. Therefore there should be a smaller bomb that can be used on the Athena, as I stated in my first post

Maybe the Athena simply uses its larger secondary banks to carry more missiles? Maybe pre-shields the term bomber was just the name used for a heavy strike fighter. If you look at the Athena it does after all have much more in common with a fighter than it does with the heavy Ursa and Medusa bombers.

Besides who says you only carry Stillettos to diable a capship? I prefer to use normal missiles most of the time so that I'm actually inflicting hull damge. Most likely athenas worked in a similar fashion. Or maybe they employed a two phase attack. Launching their Stillettos from long range and then closing to kill the now disarmed cruiser with missiles.

See? No need for a new smaller bomb class. I have no objection to the introduction of one but there certainly isn't a need.

Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
Amuns can carry Tsunamis

Without shields they'd suffer heavy losses trying to use them though.

Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
It seems to me that you were the one that wasn't reading my post.

Don't take my comment about you not reading my posts as an attempt at points scoring. I was honestly puzzled as to why you were simply restating a set of questions I had already answered further up.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Besides who says you only carry Stillettos to diable a capship? I prefer to use normal missiles most of the time so that I'm actually inflicting hull damge. Most likely athenas worked in a similar fashion. Or maybe they employed a two phase attack. Launching their Stillettos from long range and then closing to kill the now disarmed cruiser with missiles.

See? No need for a new smaller bomb class. I have no objection to the introduction of one but there certainly isn't a need.

      If Bombers don't carry bombs what's the point of them even existing? An Amun is a slow moving target, if all it is going to do is carry missiles why use it at all? Why not employ Seths with large loads of missiles to destroy Orions instead?

       The very existance of bombers before the Tsunami suggests that there are other bombs in existance during the great war. Otherwise there is _no_ reason for the bomber class to even exist. If the chief objective is delivering missiles to the target and surviving then more-nimble, less armoured craft would be the better choice.

        Therefore, there must be a bomb before the Tsunami with enough oomph to warrant its use. Now maybe a light bomb for the Athena . . . erm, nevermind, the Athena has the Phoenix-class of missiles (which are supposed to be anti-bomber but anyway). Okay, maybe the _athena_ doesn't need a light bomb (other than previous, suckier Phoenix models)

        But all of the other bombers do. Maybe FS1 bombs are similar to SW bombs with little means of propulsion and are easy to shoot down, so instead you have Amuns first disabling Orion turrets and then launching bombs which are designed, in-part to kill capital ships, and that otherwise wouldn't normally get through the Orion's defensive fire. But on the whole, Amuns should be able to kill Orions on their own (with escort) without resorting to using missiles which any old fighter could bring along. A heavy bomb, for a heavy bomber.

[NGTM-1R]

Some sort of heavy warhead is needed for a destroyer, although I suppose a massed assault with all-Furies loadouts is a possiblity, provided you can knock out enough weapons to create a safe area from which to do it. As for cruisers...
Athena wing loaded up with MX-50s parks itself at about max range for the MX-50 from an Aten and commences emptying their secondary bays. Aten explodes shortly thereafter. This is also safer then a bombing run with Tsunamis, since the MX-50 outranges the Aten's weaponry.

[StratComm]

Remember that the Harbringer pre-dates FS1; it was only refitted to serve as an anti-cap bomb when the Ursa came out.  

Lets not forget that in the Freespace universe, bombing without shields is often a quite lethal endeavor.  And I'm not talking about hostile fire.  The blast radius on a Tsunami (nevermind a Harbringer) does heavy damage to any unshielded fighter in its radius, and bombers are often caught in the blast radius of their own bombs.  With shields, the blast washes fairly harmlessly around them and so bombing runs remain feasable.  Without them, they become completely suicidal.  That's why there really isn't canon evidence supporting heavier munitions for early bombers.  Of course, I agree with Kara in that I wouldn't object to the introduction to early bombs.  I just don't see them being at all practical.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
If Bombers don't carry bombs what's the point of them even existing? An Amun is a slow moving target, if all it is going to do is carry missiles why use it at all? Why not employ Seths with large loads of missiles to destroy Orions instead?

I was talking about the Athena and answering your objections to that. Like I said there is no need for the Athena to carry a heavier load to justify it's status as a bomber. For the terrans a bomber was simply a heavier fighter comparable to the fighter bombers of modern airforces (i.e a ship that isn't as nimble as an interceptor but which can carry a heavier load).

The vasudans have taken that principle further. The amun's are slower but they pack a bigger punch. They don't need to rearm all the time. They are deployed once the fighter cover has been whittled down a little so that they have some survivability.

Why not deploy seths instead? Quite simply a Seth would have to stop and make a target of itself rearming all the time. When stopped a few hits can take out a seth. And that ignores the fact that it's easy to concentrate too hard on the capship in front of you and be surprised by an enemy blatting you from behind.

The Amun on the other hand can defend itself while recharging and is less vulnerable to this kind of rear attack due to its turrets.

Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
 If the chief objective is delivering missiles to the target and surviving then more-nimble, less armoured craft would be the better choice.  

Not when a couple of shots from a destroyer result in you having to write a letter to the pilots family. The Amun and Osiris can take a little more punishment than a Seth can. That is important in bombing missions.

Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
 Maybe FS1 bombs are similar to SW bombs with little means of propulsion and are easy to shoot down, so instead you have Amuns first disabling Orion turrets and then launching bombs which are designed, in-part to kill capital ships, and that otherwise wouldn't normally get through the Orion's defensive fire. But on the whole, Amuns should be able to kill Orions on their own (with escort) without resorting to using missiles which any old fighter could bring along. A heavy bomb, for a heavy bomber.

I'll give you that as a possibility for the vasudan bombers. I don't agree with it 100% but it certainly is feasable. I don't see the Terrans doing this with the Athena though. So we're back to asking what the Athena carries if this is the case?

[Akalabeth Angel]

Nevermind about the Athena, the Phoenix missile can be its "light bomb".

One ambiguity with the Athena's description however is that it was written post-shivan contact as its described as "shielded". Therefore, it's hard to say whether its Light Bomber status is in relation to the Medusa or in relation to previous bombers not seen in FS1. Maybe the Vasudans with their devotion to the cause over personal safety empoy anti-ship and anti-capital bombers whereas the Terrans use bombers in the role you've described? That would help distinguish the two parties in the war.

I'm still not sure about the lethality of launching bombs in FS1. While the shockwave is a problem the obvious solution is to not be near the bomb when it goes off and as far as I can remember the bombs have a decent launch range so the bomber shouldn't have to be 50 metres from the hull before they launch the bomb. Of course when the bomb is shot down it poses the same problem, but perhaps bombers launch their payload and then afterburn away from it rather than in shielded-era where you can launch, switch banks, and launch again or just keep on firing to draw fire from your bombs.

[karajorma]

Why can't an equivalent of the phoenix be the "bomb" the Amun and Osiris carry. They just carry more of them

[Akalabeth Angel]

Because if Interceptors are designed to chase down both enemy bombers and enemy bombs, they'd be of little use against long-ranged, high speed missiles like the Phoenix.

[karajorma]

Maybe they have a more primative version of the interceptor which is basically similar but has the bomb flag and is a little slower

[Akalabeth Angel]

Possibly, it really depends on what TVWP decides on. Hopefully it'll be good whatever it is.

[karajorma]

Well hopefully this topic has been of interest to them

Personally I like this kind of topic cause it gives me idea. Much better than your standard "What's your favourite ship" topics

[NGTM-1R]

Bomb shockwaves in a shieldless bomber aren't so much of a threat to you as they are to the people intercepting your bombs.

I've see an Apollo shoot down a Shivan bomb, or done it myself, and gotten blown away by the shockwave far too many times...