Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: eliex on December 24, 2007, 05:43:07 pm
-
How many times have we, on patrol missions, shot down at least 30 bomber pilots, not to mention the fighter complemnet that goes with it?
How many times have you been killed, or more like your wingmen on bomber missions with only 4 fighters to cover you?
Have your observations been down to the point that bombers aren't meant to survive, just deliver your load and then
explode so the next wing would move in.
That's the way I see it.
The GTB Boargnerges, or however you spell it tech reading goes: " . . . and may possibly live to escape the blast for another round"'
Look! So much for the GTVA caring for other peoples' lives, they can't even take care of their bombers, can't even say, with a good pilot, the bomber will have a more or less certainty to jump back to base when the mission is over . . .
However, a good counter-argument is that for the other side . . .
um . . . excuse me but bombers have only one pilot in them . . .
Cruisers and destroyers have over 100 . . . be considerate . . . the pilots who defend destroyer won't have a home to go back to.
What about them? :)
-
If bombers weren't meant to survive, they'd be unmanned, fast, low armor, and low missile capacity. :doubt:
Anyway, all the GTVA has to do is give the bombers a good fighter escort, which given my experience has never happened. My favorite bombers have been the Medusa and then the Bonergrazer. The Medusa is relatively speedy (compared to other bombers), and the bonergrazer has the largest missile capacity.
One more thing: Why do people seem to think the Ursa is so awesome? It's secondary capacity is the same as the Medusa, it's just a lot larger and slower. Sure it has more armor and shields, but the size and speed of it more than negates that. I can understand that it works, but you're going to need a lot larger escort for them than the Medusa. Sure it can mount the Helios, but it's not like the first volley of double cyclopes from a wing of any bomber couldn't cripple a corvette. And anything larger than a corvette is going to have a fighter bay with enough fighters to annihilate the bomber wing and its escort.
-
What makes the Ursa great for me are the twin primary banks. This means I can both mount a Maxim as well as defend myself passably against the less-nimble fighter models. The Kayser turret helps with the second part too, but is very much secondary. It is also both more durable as well as faster on afterburners than a Boanerges, which helps a lot when making attack runs.
-
Real Men kill Dragons in Ursas!
-
Yeah, and real kill 80 juggernauts single-handly with a Chronos!! :)
-
I prefer the Sekhmet for bombing in most cases. I think people like the Ursa because of the little turret on the back which always seems to be destroyed on the first hit. Medusa makes a good suicide bomber in multi. Boa is slow but carries heavy bomb load. It all comes down to the mission on which I prefer. Do I need Trebs, Nukes, or some combination.
-
Actually in FS2, it's shameful that only the highest level Shivan bombers get turrets. Neither the Boarnerges or the Sekhmet get to have
turrets. Not like it helps though . . . now that we've got shields . . .
In the 3rd mission in the first Freespace campaign, the Osiris can really get dangerous with the Prometheus laser shooting up at you.
-
People who fly Sekhmets are lamers
People who like the Boaneges are suicidal...
-
just deliver your load and then explode
That's what she said.
-
I almost always use the Sekhmet for bombing if it's available. It has the same strength and bomb capacity of the Ursa but is small and agile enough to be used like a heavy fighter. In most situations, I find that you can't rely much on fighter escorts and need to be able to take on enemy fighters yourself.
That being said, the Ursa's turret can sometimes come in handy, especially in multiplayer where it doesn't suffer from the primary weapon delay that affects normal guns.
-
Nearly all the bombers are getting phrased out of the GTVA fleet - when beams are available, what's the point of a bomb?
Really what I think bombers are for killing off the heavy beam turrets and the AAAFs.
I don't get this: can you explain this to me?
just deliver your load and then explode
That's what she said.
And who's she?
-
If bomber turrets actually worked defensibly then bombers would have a lot better chance of surviving. Currently bomber (and fighter) turrets shoot only at the target targeted by the ship.
-
Pfffffft, all of you know nothing.
Osiris is the best bomber EVAR!!!!!!!!
On a serious note, it's a "depending on what you need destoryed" toss up. Sekhmet is usually the primary choice for big things, however if you need agility, the Bakha offers the near-fighter maneouvering with the ability of a heavy payload.
If you're bombing an Arcadia though.... lag loaded Perseus with Helios was always my choice.
-
One more thing: Why do people seem to think the Ursa is so awesome? It's secondary capacity is the same as the Medusa, it's just a lot larger and slower.
Ursa = 80x3 (240)
Medusa = 40x1, 80x2 (200)
240 = 200
Huh?
-
Yeah, and real kill 80 juggernauts single-handly with a Chronos!! :)
Oh, you forgot that this is possible now! :mad2: ;7 :nod: :) ! Make that mission in FRED and post a video... ;)
-
I don't get this: can you explain this to me?
just deliver your load and then explode
That's what she said.
And who's she?
Not an Office fan are we?
Last paragraph under Modern Usage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That%27s_What_She_Said#Modern_usage)
-
Oh whoops . . . uh-oh . . .
-
One more thing: Why do people seem to think the Ursa is so awesome? It's secondary capacity is the same as the Medusa, it's just a lot larger and slower.
Ursa = 80x3 (240)
Medusa = 40x1, 80x2 (200)
240 = 200
Huh?
:wtf:
...
Oh!
IIRC when you play missions, they can load the same amount of bombs. So the cyclops ~40. Even if it's not, you only get one or two more in the Ursa. IMO, it's not worth it.
-
The Cyclops is 15 cargo size points.
You can fit more Cyclopes in Ursae than Medusae.
-
Bombers are for killing, not for living.
-
The Cyclops is 15 cargo size points.
You can fit more Cyclopes in Ursae than Medusae.
Okay so you can fit 3 more bombs in the Ursa, yet that didn't invalidate my premise. I would still take the Medusa over the Ursa for almost any bombing mission.
-
The Cyclops is 15 cargo size points.
You can fit more Cyclopes in Ursae than Medusae.
Okay so you can fit 3 more bombs in the Ursa, yet that didn't invalidate my premise. I would still take the Medusa over the Ursa for almost any bombing mission.
Actually two cyclops. The Reason why Ursa is more popular is the better shielding and the heavier armour. It also has two primary banks and its turet is miles ahead of the Medusas. (Granted, this is coming from somebody who usually uses the Boa for Slaying Ravana.)
-
Ursa all the way.. I allways use the big sucka.
First I kill off all the basalisks with my primaries...if there are other pests around I take em out too...I'm sorta paving the way for hte othr bombers..then I let em loose. Bye, Bye Ravana.
they Keyser turret is worth GOLD.
-
The Medusa is fine as far as I'm concerned, but it can't mount the Helios, can it?
Besides, I've gotten fairly good with off-center gunmounts. I love blasting Thoths with the Ursa's side guns. :D
So I guess it depends, really. In situations where I'd be attacking destroyers, I pick an Ursa. Otherwise a Medusa will more than suffice.
Of course, I'd pick a Sekhmet over them both. :D
-
Nearly all the bombers are getting phrased out of the GTVA fleet - when beams are available, what's the point of a bomb?
The point of the bomb is that you can't fire anti-cap beams against bombs; If you first send bombers to weaken a... Say an Orion, and then send in; say a Vesudan corvette, you win.
See also: The part of the FS2 campaign where you fly in a bomber sqaud.
-
It is also more cost efficient to commit bombers than to commit a full destroyer and risk it be destroyed. All destroyers on FS2 and FS1 double as a carrier for fighters/bombers as well. Losing any of them is a significant lost.
-
In WWII, we lost a ton of B-17s because "Command" thought they were "Flying Fortresses" and didn't send any fighter cover with them. Ofc, they dropped like flies. They could bite back, but you can't pit a bomber against a fighter and expect the bomber to win most of the time. The fighters are small, fast, and nimble and hard to see / target. The bombers are large, slow, and hard to maneuver, and easy to see / target. D'uh. Bomber loses. Interceptor fighters should be the type to escort bombers.. they are built for intercepting bombs / fighters. Either that, or space superiority fighters. But I'd think interceptors would be better, because they can zip out, destroy the enemy fighter(s) and zip back.
-
The point of the bomb is that you can't fire anti-cap beams against bombs
Actually, you can. It usually makes quick work of both the bomb and the (retreating) bomer.
-
Yes but actually that isn't supposed to happen. Anti Capital Beams can't target bombs or Bombers per defintion but somtimes they still do. Anyway it was quite funny to see the Orion shooting with his BGreen at me. Thankfully I was in God mode at that moment.
-
Hmm...if you're talking about beams, I don't think you can get shot down by friendly beam fire. There was one time I FREDded an Inferno mission and accidentally set the TSJ Icanus to fire its primary beam cannon, the USilv, at me. I didn't activate God mode and got hit...but I didn't suffer a scratch.
I always put the Ursa as my favourite choice of bomber, followed by, in order, the Sekhmet, Medusa, Bakha, Boanerges, Artemis D.H., Artemis, Zeus, Osiris, Amun and Myrmidon.
...I'd like to fly a Shivan Seraphim some day, just for the feel of it. It must be really nice flying them. I'd even like to fly the Vindyachal in INFR1, just because it has a beam cannon. ;)
-
If you are hit with friendly fire the damage you get is drastically reduced but enough of it can still kill you. I remember playing 'The Great Hunt' and just as Command said: Avoid the beam and you won't get hit, guess what happened? Yes I was deep fried by a slasher from the GTCv Actium. Funny isn't it?
-
...and that was why one of your wingmen said, "Dammit Actium! Watch that friendly fire!" :lol:
That really must have been Command's most useless advice. To avoid the beam means to stay behind the two corvettes. To stay behind the two corvettes would mean their destruction. To stay in front of them, however, means certain death.
I bet the Actium's captain was a bit too over-enthusiastic firing his beams. :lol:
...but seriously, I'd like to fly a Seraphim sometime and experience "the terror of intercept fighters". :eek:
-
On default setting if the beam fire is not carefully coordinated in the mission file - that is ships are set 'beam-free' - then all the beams (including anti-cap ship beams) prioritize bombs over all other targets and also often kill the unsuspecting bombers 'hiding' behind the 'bomb screen' as well. This is used by some knowingly into their advantage - like tossing bombs towards, or even between, enemy cap ships drawing the heavy beam fire away from the friendly cap ships, sort of jamming the enemy anti-cap ship weapons.
-
It's funny to see a twin Ravana beam fire for 10secs just for the sake of twin Cyclops to neutralize the beam before the Vasudan destroyer got wasted.
Ironic that the destroyer got destroyed . . .
-
In WWII, we lost a ton of B-17s because "Command" thought they were "Flying Fortresses" and didn't send any fighter cover with them. Ofc, they dropped like flies. They could bite back, but you can't pit a bomber against a fighter and expect the bomber to win most of the time. The fighters are small, fast, and nimble and hard to see / target. The bombers are large, slow, and hard to maneuver, and easy to see / target. D'uh. Bomber loses. Interceptor fighters should be the type to escort bombers.. they are built for intercepting bombs / fighters. Either that, or space superiority fighters. But I'd think interceptors would be better, because they can zip out, destroy the enemy fighter(s) and zip back.
Well before the P-51, friendly interceptors just didn't have enough fuel to escort the B-17 during raids deep into Germany (and Command couldn't do much about that), and that's why it needed 13 .50 cal machine guns to have a chance against the Luftwaffe.
-
I suck at bombing...
I prefer suppression to bombing.
An Artemis or, if I can get away with it, an Ares with Prometheus/Kayser and a Maxim, with a load of Trees or Stiletto.
Take out the engines and main beams, let your capship do the hard work while you still have the right weapons to switch back to defend your capship (Trees FTW!)
I was better at it in the Starwars games (But then a B-Wing can singlehandedly take on a Corvette or Neb-B Frigate so... ;))
-
In WWII, we lost a ton of B-17s because "Command" thought they were "Flying Fortresses" and didn't send any fighter cover with them. Ofc, they dropped like flies. They could bite back, but you can't pit a bomber against a fighter and expect the bomber to win most of the time. The fighters are small, fast, and nimble and hard to see / target. The bombers are large, slow, and hard to maneuver, and easy to see / target. D'uh. Bomber loses. Interceptor fighters should be the type to escort bombers.. they are built for intercepting bombs / fighters. Either that, or space superiority fighters. But I'd think interceptors would be better, because they can zip out, destroy the enemy fighter(s) and zip back.
Well before the P-51, friendly interceptors just didn't have enough fuel to escort the B-17 during raids deep into Germany (and Command couldn't do much about that), and that's why it needed 13 .50 cal machine guns to have a chance against the Luftwaffe.
They couldn't just put a drop tank(s) on a Spit?