[Mars]

Hugely expensive and logistically demanding bombers don't work when one is going up against a horde of cheap destroyers.

[headdie]

Hugely expensive and logistically demanding bombers don't work when one is going up against a horde of cheap destroyers.

bombers are significantly more flexible both in the fact that a squadron of bombers can be spread across multiple battle locations where as a warship cant, It is easier to vary the loads on bombers and lastly take out a squadron of bombers then thats 12-24 people, take out a warship and you are looking at 100s-1000s of death, not to mention the material loss.

edit

also if the situation changes then bomber jump drives charge faster than a warship making redeploying them to a new location a lot faster

[Mars]

What I'm saying is that UEF bombers wouldn't do very well against anti-shivan warfare compared to cheaper, faster bombers en masse.

[headdie]

What I'm saying is that UEF bombers wouldn't do very well against anti-shivan warfare compared to cheaper, faster bombers en masse.

ahh fair enough, I missed the context.

[crizza]

Then the shivans will screw around with logistic ships too.

[headdie]

the thing is if you are still going to operate bombers then the Ballistic weapon parts and ammo go on top of the existing logistics demand rather than instead of and imho dropping bomber support would be a poor choice for the GTVA.

also consider this, how many turrets have you shot off warships in your time playing FS?  if they are mission critical then ballistic turrets will die just as fast as beams and bombers, perhaps faster than bombers given the existence of very effective anti subsystem weapons and the lack of effective dedicated anti bomber weapons.

[Aesaar]

I would not be surprised in the least if 3 Artemises cost less than a Durga or a Vajradhara.  At the same time, 3 Artemises are harder to destroy by both fighters and point defenses, and carry more ordnance.  The only thing they can't do is carry heavy bombs like the Helios, but I'm pretty sure that a situation that requires Helios use would be better handled by deploying Supernova SSMs instead of heavy bombers.

[CT27]

If/when the GTVA wins the war and gains access to UEF technology, might they decide to use Paveways instead of Stilettos from then on?

[Aesaar]

Considering Stiletto-IIs suck, almost certainly.


Although I do think the Paveway should be interceptable.  It's just weird to have an unstoppable, unerringly accurate, almost guaranteed subsystem-kill weapon that can be fired from 3 km away without effort.  Feels cheap.  At least the Archer requires accuracy and takes up a ****load of space.   Making the Paveway less unstoppable might actually make the Uriel's Archer more special.

Hell, I wouldn't mind it if every missile had a $Weapon Hitpoints entry.

[X3N0-Life-Form]

It's just weird to have an unstoppable, unerringly accurate, almost guaranteed subsystem-kill weapon that can be fired from 3 km away without effort.  Feels cheap.

The Trebuchet says hi. Except if BP nerfed it, then I withdraw my comment.
And if you want to disable a weakly armored ship, the Paveway would fit better, though civilian ships are easy to disable with anti-sub primaries and the days of paper-thin cruisers are somewhat gone in the BP-verse.

Hell, I wouldn't mind it if every missile had a $Weapon Hitpoints entry.

This would surely make an interesting mod balance. I'd expect warships to pack much more CIWS-like point defence to compensate for the number of targets.

Also, something that just crossed my mind: do turrets intercept any bomb they can target, or just those targeting their ship? I can't check in-game right now.

[General Battuta]

This would surely make an interesting mod balance. I'd expect warships to pack much more CIWS-like point defence to compensate for the number of targets.

Wings of Dawn is already like this. But the AI doesn't know how to attack weapons with a hitpoint total; it'll still only shoot at bombs.

[Aesaar]

It's just weird to have an unstoppable, unerringly accurate, almost guaranteed subsystem-kill weapon that can be fired from 3 km away without effort.  Feels cheap.

The Trebuchet says hi. Except if BP nerfed it, then I withdraw my comment.

  It wasn't an intentional nerf, but if you have a subsystem with an armor class better than Heavy Armor 100, Trebuchets become almost useless because they aren't Puncture weapons like Paveways and Stilettos are.  That makes sense, because the Treb is a multi-role missile, but it somewhat kills its anti-subsystem capabilities.  Add Trebs to Aristeia and try to shoot down the Medea's beams with them and you'll see what I mean.

I admit I wouldn't really mind the Treb (or all heavy missiles) having the bomb flag either, but I don't care enough to lobby for it.

Wings of Dawn is already like this. But the AI doesn't know how to attack weapons with a hitpoint total; it'll still only shoot at bombs.

That's a shame.  Adding the bomb flag to everything would horribly clutter up the B target queue.  Oh well.

[General Battuta]

I am not super against the idea of giving the Treb and Paveway bomb flags. It's unfortunately just a little late now.

[Aesaar]

I thought so.  Even if the AI doesn't shoot at missiles with hitpoints, can it still target them if specifically told to?  If so, adding that flag could be worth it, if only to add the possibility of a scripted intercept during a mission.

[General Battuta]

Bumpin cause CT27 wants to talk about something

[CT27]

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=89926.0

This recent thread by the General got me thinking about my old thread that just got bumped here.  He also said in the thread that GTVA bomber doctrine would be reformed and the GTVA was thinking of superbombers.



Assuming the GTVA wins the war militarily, will they try to change their bombers or incorporate any of the things the UEF does in GTVA bombers?

[Mars]

I kind of doubt it. The GTVA uses bombers for target softening and light anti-shipping. They use corvettes for anti-warship work. Bombers just don't nearly have the same niche in the GTVA.

[Celendil]

Bombers just don't nearly have the same niche in the GTVA.

That's not to say that the GTVA can't take tactics from it's opponents and work on them - the TEI is a pretty good example, in my opinion. They took what they learnt from Shivan corvette and destroyer tactics and then ran with it - who's to say they wouldn't recognise the abilities that the UEF Bombers have and work to upgrade/enhance their own bombers?

From a certain point of view, a loss of a wing of bombers for the destruction of a Corvette (or larger) class ship is a fairly good (well, except for the poor bomber pilots) trade on the strategic, cost, infrastructure, and morale levels, assuming you can develop bombers that aren't ridiculously expensive for the work they do.

I think the question isn't 'will they', it's more 'do they have time to design and then rush new bombers in to the Sol theatre?'

E: sorry, missed the 'assuming they win the war militarily' bit, this is a question about after the war? Then yeah, I think they definitely will. If for no other reason than the UEF has demonstrated a potential weakness of the shock jump & beam spam strategies in regards to AWACS jamming.

[T-Man]

If they did, it may not necessarily be a universal shift. As Mars commented the GTVA in BP does seem to focus more on corvettes for tackling enemy capitals and deploy their own bombers against lighter targets, but the GTVA could still develop/incorporate the capacity to operate superbombers as an option alongside that standard.

Having some fleets sticking to corvette focus and some switching to superbomber focus (whether it be by choice of the Admirals themselves or the choice of command) gives a bit of flexibility, which may help in situations where the enemy expose a weakness in a tactic (such as the UEF jamming beams to counter shock-jumps). Alternatively the superbombers could be introduced as a sort of specialist detachment (so a squadron on their own light carrier, not unlike how Inferno's old canon had the Notus IIRC) that gets assigned to fleets when felt needed.

(Both these would likely also make the fleet a logistical nightmare of course, so pinch of salt 'n' all )

[Celendil]

From a command point of view, despite the inherent risks in lessening the Battlegroup's focus on the forward heavy damage role that seems popular post-TEI, I think I would prefer to have the tactical flexibility available. If I had sacrifice having a Deimos, or even a Diomedes in my battlegroup to have a wing of very heavy bombers with multirole tactical training and the ability to do damage to targets ranging from cruisers through to Destroyers, I'd probably take that trade, because of the additional flexibility they'd give me.

Can I use them as a versatile strike package (with a fighter escort) to harass enemy logistics without needing capital support? Yep.
Can I use them as a medium to heavy strike package to deliver ordinance and then warp out before being picked off by defending fighters? Yep.
Can I keep them in reserve to jump after retreating damaged vessels to potentially finish them if the main battle situation allows me to? Yep.