Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: roguevalkyrie on March 18, 2010, 02:08:52 am
-
Is it known if the Terr ans and Vasudans ever use planet based starfighters?
-
As in starfighters that can operate in atmosphere, regular fighter aircraft, or starfighters that are based on a planet and have to launch to space for every mission?
If either of the first two, I think it's a pretty good assumption that they did.
-
If I recall correctly from the FS Reference Bible, all FS fighters can operate in the atmosphere. How well they do that is up for debate, but you should assume that they can take off and land from planetary bases.
-
yeah... I would love to see an Ursa taking off ground and staying in the air ;7
-
Given the way FS ships handle, I'm going to assume they've got some "inertial-damping"/"acceleration-modifier" (AKA "anti-gravity") stuff going on. Given the way you walk about ships, this may not be too far off. You might even be able to modulate the shields to a degree to reduce air friction about some of those rough edges.
Of course, space-bound only craft are also understandable. For instance, when writing/doing concept art on Cardinal Spear's GTB Gorgon, that is indeed supposed to be a space-only craft (according to my interpretation :nervous:). Something like the Ursa would also be a candidate for this treatment... can you imagine a real-world Ursa... :shaking:
...Of course, that wouldn't hurt the Ursa as it's still perfectly capable of unleashing on a planet with HUGE BOMBZ!!! :lol:
-
Just the image of a Myrmidon laying waste to a mid-sized city using only half a bank of Tempests makes me smile a bit ... and also think about the incredible overpoweredness of FS2 fluff.
-
Kilotons doesn't need to be kilotons of TNT. Could be kilotons of wet matches.
-
Honestly Snail? The only thing measured in Kilotons is yield, when referring to explosions.
-
Kilotons of wet matches' yield is still yield, Scotty.
-
Given the way FS ships handle, I'm going to assume they've got some "inertial-damping"/"acceleration-modifier" (AKA "anti-gravity") stuff going on. Given the way you walk about ships, this may not be too far off. You might even be able to modulate the shields to a degree to reduce air friction about some of those rough edges.
:v: as much as admitted that FS ships have antigrav as a natural extension of their artificial gravity technology in one the developer emails. Aldo posted a thread about it once.
They might even retain their slow speeds in atmosphere as a way to make it marginally possible to use missile weapons against each other (shockwave issues would normal result in a huge number of crashes at high speed), but I doubt you really want to be chucking around the multi-kiloton stuff in an atmosphere anyways.
Kilotons of wet matches' yield is still yield, Scotty.
Yield calculations have always been done in terms of TNT. It's a pretty reasonable assumption they still are, unless you have evidence otherwise.
-
Honestly Snail? The only thing measured in Kilotons is yield, when referring to explosions.
Honeslty Scotty? Yield is measured in tons of TNT. 1 kiloton is equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT.
-
Kilotons doesn't need to be kilotons of TNT. Could be kilotons of wet matches.
I'm Commander Shepherd, and this is my favorite theory on the forums.
Way to miss the point, Scotty!
-
stfu i was srs :(
-
A tonne of housebricks or a tonne of feathers. The results the same. And I for one would sanction a Pegasus to fire a tempest or two on enemies of the state. Or i'd send an Apollo with two MX-50s back in time to win WW2 early.
I believe that the GTA must have had at least one or two planetary fighter bases.
The Vasudans had fighter escorts leading the prime evac.
Stands to reason we as the superior species have a counterpart.
-
Kilotons doesn't need to be kilotons of TNT. Could be kilotons of wet matches.
I'm Commander Shepherd, and this is my favorite theory on the forums.
This really would be a fantastic way to resolve tech-room wankery. Just state that no one uses TNT anymore, so the yield scale is based on a much more weaksauce substance. :D
-
A tonne of housebricks or a tonne of feathers. The results the same. And I for one would sanction a Pegasus to fire a tempest or two on enemies of the state. Or i'd send an Apollo with two MX-50s back in time to win WW2 early.
Let's drop a Helios on those damn fascists! ;7
-
i belive in the FS1 vasuda prime bombardment cini you see a seth, another fighter and a transport operating in an the atmosphere escaping a city befur the lucy's beam hits
-
in the "Fall of Vasuda Prime" cutscene (great stuff btw, check it out if you havent" we see a satis and a Chronosis freighter flying in atmosphere, and we also see the terran freighter stop, hover, decend, and pick up a container. i'm assuming it had the ability to take off again. so it makes sence that fighters can fly in atmosphere and such
-
in the "Fall of Vasuda Prime" cutscene (great stuff btw, check it out if you havent" we see a satis and a Chronosis freighter flying in atmosphere, and we also see the terran freighter stop, hover, decend, and pick up a container. i'm assuming it had the ability to take off again. so it makes sence that fighters can fly in atmosphere and such
Yeah, but that's strictly non-canon, sorry.
-
Well, the tech description on the Banshee definitely suggests that it was tested under atmospheric conditions...that doesn't rule out specifically-designed planetary fighters that could mount the weapon though.
I don't think the FSRefBible is the best reference for canon as it contains a lot of cut content and stuff that was eventually changed...
The Galatea obviously isn't the ITA Repulse.
Yeah, I know it's the word of God and technically completely canon, but I have a hard time taking it as such.
-
A tonne of housebricks or a tonne of feathers. The results the same.
Neither bricks or feathers are explosives, so yes, the result of trying to detonate them is the same.
However, if people don't use TNT in the 2300's I wouldn't be surprized if they rated the yield of bombs in kilotons of something different.
Stands to reason we as the superior species ...
That's racist!
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090711192838/uncyclopedia/images/5/5d/Thatsracist.gif)
-
I believe that the GTA must have had at least one or two planetary fighter bases.
The Vasudans had fighter escorts leading the prime evac.
Stands to reason we as the superior species have a counterpart.
I don't remember there being anything in canon suggesting terrans were "superior". In fact, I think it was implied more than once that Vasudans have superior propulsion technology (the Interceptor propulsion system, Vasudan fighters being generally faster and maybe even capable of inter-system jumps early in the war). So, in my humble opinion (and I may be wrong), it is perfectly possible the Vasudans were able to operate fighters from ground bases more easily.
[/non-canonicity]
-
Just ignore Dekker, he's just rabidly anti-Vasudan.
-
Just ignore Dekker, he's just rabidly anti-Vasudan.
What's wrong with being humanitarian? :P
-
I believe that the GTA must have had at least one or two planetary fighter bases.
The Vasudans had fighter escorts leading the prime evac.
Stands to reason we as the superior species have a counterpart.
I don't remember there being anything in canon suggesting terrans were "superior". In fact, I think it was implied more than once that Vasudans have superior propulsion technology (the Interceptor propulsion system, Vasudan fighters being generally faster and maybe even capable of inter-system jumps early in the war). So, in my humble opinion (and I may be wrong), it is perfectly possible the Vasudans were able to operate fighters from ground bases more easily.
[/non-canonicity]
yeah, but the the interceptor had a terran warhead and terran shis generally had better armor, but the vasudans had better warships (not counting the Aten-class
-
I always looked at things like this
Vasudans made thing fast and high tech
Terrans made things to be strong but low tech
-
I believe that the GTA must have had at least one or two planetary fighter bases.
The Vasudans had fighter escorts leading the prime evac.
Stands to reason we as the superior species have a counterpart.
I don't remember there being anything in canon suggesting terrans were "superior". In fact, I think it was implied more than once that Vasudans have superior propulsion technology (the Interceptor propulsion system, Vasudan fighters being generally faster and maybe even capable of inter-system jumps early in the war). So, in my humble opinion (and I may be wrong), it is perfectly possible the Vasudans were able to operate fighters from ground bases more easily.
[/non-canonicity]
yeah, but the the interceptor had a terran warhead and terran shis generally had better armor, but the vasudans had better warships (not counting the Aten-class
Truth, but that still sounds like a tie to me.
Also, don't underestimate the Aten. Despite its deficient armament, its strong hull enable it to sustain considerable punishment while begging for its life.
And I heard if you stand in front of a mirror and say "the Aten sucks" thirteen times, a Vasudan will appear in the mirror and taunt you about the Hecate.
:p
-
At least the Hecate has beamz. :P
-
Well the Big Hat also has beams. Bigger and better beams than the Hecate could ever dream of.
-
... maybe thats why the Valkyrie has wings? Wings serve no purpose in space. Although it doesn't have a vertical stabilizer... wing thingy.
-
... maybe thats why the Valkyrie has wings? Wings serve no purpose in space. Although it doesn't have a vertical stabilizer... wing thingy.
wings would make good mounting points for small maneuvering thrusters
-
I don't think the FSRefBible is the best reference for canon as it contains a lot of cut content and stuff that was eventually changed...
The Galatea obviously isn't the ITA Repulse.
Yeah, I know it's the word of God and technically completely canon, but I have a hard time taking it as such.
You have at least have a point. As opposed to newer members getting into this community the canon is getting skewed or canon is said to be not.
-
Yeah, I know it's the word of God and technically completely canon, but I have a hard time taking it as such.
Well, that's because game canon is newer than bible canon so :p .
-
You have at least have a point. As opposed to newer members getting into this community the canon is getting skewed or canon is said to be not.
You do realize this is absolute bullcrap right as the FSReference Bible being raw canoncity as the Word of God comes down to us from people like Aldo?
Right?
-
The Council of Nicaea condemns the design of the Valkyrie. All memory of this ship must be erased or God will double the number of blind people in Albania.
I wouldn't worry about this sort of thing too much. I take fighter design and whatnot with about as much salt as I take the tech room's description of warhead yield. In fact, let us never mention the tech room again.
-
I was just more of saying something about the new members.
-
The Council of Nicaea condemns the design of the Valkyrie. All memory of this ship must be erased or God will double the number of blind people in Albania.
I wouldn't worry about this sort of thing too much. I take fighter design and whatnot with about as much salt as I take the tech room's description of warhead yield. In fact, let us never mention the tech room again.
What's this valkyrie you speak of? sounds like a cool ship name
-
The Council of Nicaea condemns the design of the Valkyrie. All memory of this ship must be erased or God will double the number of blind people in Albania.
I wouldn't worry about this sort of thing too much. I take fighter design and whatnot with about as much salt as I take the tech room's description of warhead yield. In fact, let us never mention the tech room again.
What's this valkyrie you speak of? sounds like a cool ship name
wait... what?
I think he's talking about the Valky from FS1... or maybe not and I'm just in the wrong thread at the wrong time.
-
The Council of Nicaea condemns the design of the Valkyrie. All memory of this ship must be erased or God will double the number of blind people in Albania.
I wouldn't worry about this sort of thing too much. I take fighter design and whatnot with about as much salt as I take the tech room's description of warhead yield. In fact, let us never mention the tech room again.
What's this valkyrie you speak of? sounds like a cool ship name
Ship? What ship!? I thought this forum was about puppies! :eek2:
:lol:
-
The Council of Nicaea condemns the design of the Valkyrie. All memory of this ship must be erased or God will double the number of blind people in Albania.
I wouldn't worry about this sort of thing too much. I take fighter design and whatnot with about as much salt as I take the tech room's description of warhead yield. In fact, let us never mention the tech room again.
What's this valkyrie you speak of? sounds like a cool ship name
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/GTF_Valkyrie
and play FS port
-
;-)
-
Athena is best. Derp Derp Derp.
What was this topic about again?
-
Fs2's version of the athena was absolutely horrible. Wides set firing points, to balance out the fact that it carries bombs? I loved the athenas firing points. Dead on they were, you couldn't equip the most powerful primaries on it, but i didn't care.
-
Fs2's version of the athena was absolutely horrible. Wides set firing points, to balance out the fact that it carries bombs? I loved the athenas firing points. Dead on they were, you couldn't equip the most powerful primaries on it, but i didn't care.
except i think the biggest secondary the athena could cary was a stilttto and i personaly found it a good heavy dogfighter
-
Also, Vasudans have better engine designs, though Terrans get the better end of the stick when it comes to armor and firepower, in most cases, its seems.
The Vasudans seem to have better beams too.
-
Also, Vasudans have better engine designs, though Terrans get the better end of the stick when it comes to armor and firepower, in most cases, its seems.
The Vasudans seem to have better beams too.
however, the vasudans have to insert a plasma core before firing, no evidence the terrans have to do the same...
-
The Vasudans have better beams, but they don't use them often, which pretty much offsets several advantages they hold over Terran beams.
-
Wait wait wait wait wait..... are people seriously hating on the Valkyrie??? WTFH?!
-
;-)
-
Perseus is better because it has higher marks in most areas and is next gen.
The Perseus is a better all-around space superiority fighter, but in the role of a pure interceptor, nothing beats the Valkyrie.
-
Valk owns pretty hard in dogfights so long as it doesn't need to absorb incoming firepower. I liked it better than the Ulysses back in FS1.
-
Fs2's version of the athena was absolutely horrible. Wides set firing points, to balance out the fact that it carries bombs? I loved the athenas firing points. Dead on they were, you couldn't equip the most powerful primaries on it, but i didn't care.
except i think the biggest secondary the athena could cary was a stilttto and i personaly found it a good heavy dogfighter
That's what i mean when i said that the fs2 upgrade variant of the athena has wide set firing point to balance out the fact that it carries bombs. The athena not carrying bombs i was all fine with when flying it. It was an awesome durable dog fighter.
Though it doesn't carry bombs, if you equip a bunch of subsystem ****ing missiles. Then that's where it excels very well at disabling cruisers and the like.
-
The Vasudans seem to have better beams too.
however, the vasudans have to insert a plasma core before firing, no evidence the terrans have to do the same...
I'd say all factions need plasma cores. The difference in color could be obtained by plasmifying (is that even a word?) different elements- for instance, neon has it's emissive spectrum in the reds, sodium's yellowish, a mix of Xe, Kr and Ar would make white, polonium would be AAAf-ish and Bk would emit mostly green.
Now I'll insert a SWAG that beams shoot particles which are plasmified from cores, and which get sooo loaded with energy during firing (perhaps involving mucho electrons bombarding them), that they glow in their emissive spectrum. The glow around the turret could be plasma which leaked out without being accelerated for some reason. The warmup is the phase when the plasmifying process is already working, but the acceleration isn't; and cooldown would be when the accelerator is already off, but a cloud of particles is still gathered around the turret (perhaps still bombarded by mucho electrons).
-
If you are going to make plasma by bombarding elements with electrons, why not simply accelerate the electrons at the enemy ship? FS2 beams have a lot of plasma in then, and it would be easier to just skip the plasmafication for all that plasma and instead fire EPB's at your enemies.
-
I don't think an electron beam would be a hugely effective weapon. Electrons are kind of wimpy.
-
You're expending a lot of energy to bombard elements with electrons, and then expending even more energy to accelerate that plasma towards the enemy. Wouldn't it be more energy-efficient to just forget the plasmafication and use the energy that would have been needed for that to hurl a crapload of electrons towards your enemy? Yes, they're small, but they're relativistic after all.
-
Where is this whole 'bombarding elements with electrons' thing coming from?
-
Now I'll insert a SWAG that beams shoot particles which are plasmified from cores, and which get sooo loaded with energy during firing (perhaps involving mucho electrons bombarding them), that they glow in their emissive spectrum.
-
Well, maybe bombarding ships with electrons didn't produce cool looking beams visible in space?
As I wrote, my theory about beams is a SWAG based on the fact that beams are plasma obtained from cores, which appears to fly at a relativistic speed while glowing.
What about accelerating a stream of electrons in an EM field which then push the particles that are evaporated off the plasma core?
Where is this whole 'bombarding elements with electrons' thing coming from?
If you bombard particles with fast enough electrons, could get them to glow, in a spectrum that's unique to each element.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_discharge_lamp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum
-
I know what an emission spectrum is, but I strongly doubt that bombarding atoms (not particles) with electrons is the way you want to go about this.
However I'm actually in favor of the plasma beam theory.
-
That's what i mean when i said that the fs2 upgrade variant of the athena has wide set firing point to balance out the fact that it carries bombs.
You mean the Zeus?
Cause the Athena (mk2) has the same fire points as a FS1 Athena.
-
Wait wait wait wait wait..... are people seriously hating on the Valkyrie??? WTFH?!
The Valk never has enough firepower to suit my tastes. The Perseus is a lot better.
-
Wait wait wait wait wait..... are people seriously hating on the Valkyrie??? WTFH?!
The Valk never has enough firepower to suit my tastes. The Perseus is a lot better.
i agree there, the extra missile bank is very useful
-
Psh, only n00bs use missiles. Real men stick to primaries. :p
-
People are hating on the Valkyrie. Come on guys, I love the Perseus (It might be my favorite ship) but the Valk is a goddamned CLASSIC.
-
to be completely honest i was quite disappointed with the perseus compared to the valk. i didn't much care for the trend in making the fs2 fighters slower.
-
People are hating on the Valkyrie. Come on guys, I love the Perseus (It might be my favorite ship) but the Valk is a goddamned CLASSIC.
Shivan bombers have weirdly posistioned and impossible to get rid of turrets, or there's a very small chance I would have agreed.
-
to be completely honest i was quite disappointed with the perseus compared to the valk. i didn't much care for the trend in making the fs2 fighters slower.
On balance the Perseus had better shields, armor and weapons.
-
The Perseus' afterburner is practically identical to the Myrmidon's(+5 top speed, +10 Aburn fuel).
Arguably, the Myrm is a better pure bomber-interceptor than the Perseus, due to it's ability to slap its prey with the same(secondaries; well, same Tornadoes, no Harpoons, but can carry one extra Treb) or better(guns) armament and take a little more abuse from turrets in return, while being basically just as fast. If you like, you can even throw on a pair of Morning Stars for bomb-killing without diluting your anti-ship primary damage rate(due to the linked-bank penalty).
Not as good at dealing with escort fighters, perhaps(unless the escort fighters are heavy assault fighters, in which case the Myrm's extra speed, with comparable handling and tightly-grouped gun mounts, will give it a decent edge).
-
The Myrmidon is a deathtrap and the Perseus isn't.
Anyone who's fought them with Fury AI can attest to this. The Myrmidon is just a joke in a furball. The Perseus is a very tough customer.
The Myrm does do pretty well against things which are in front of it, though.
-
The Myrm does do pretty well against things which are in front of it, though.
See, that's the problem. The Myrm flies like a next-gen Apollo- it can have some trouble positioning things in front of it.
-
The Valkyrie... Well, I don't hate it, but I think its Serapis-like hull and shields absolutely kill it in FS2.
The Perseus is a nice interceptor, but it really needs some extra speed or a better reactor. However, I prefer the Myrmidon for interceptor role. And even before the Trebuchet was developed, the Myrmidon was compatible with Stiletto II missiles.
Another interesting option for interception, IMHO, is a Loki. It's fast, tough, with a small profile, has good maneuverability, and its reactor can support even the most energy demanding weapons.
There are many possibilities for the loadout. I generally go with Prom-S/Prom-S/Tempest, but the Loki is capable of carrying Maxim, Kayser, and Trebuchet too.
The only problem is the small secondary capacity (and the secondaries firing points).
The Vasudans seem to have better beams too.
however, the vasudans have to insert a plasma core before firing, no evidence the terrans have to do the same...
I'd say all factions need plasma cores. The difference in color could be obtained by plasmifying (is that even a word?) different elements- for instance, neon has it's emissive spectrum in the reds, sodium's yellowish, a mix of Xe, Kr and Ar would make white, polonium would be AAAf-ish and Bk would emit mostly green.
Now I'll insert a SWAG that beams shoot particles which are plasmified from cores, and which get sooo loaded with energy during firing (perhaps involving mucho electrons bombarding them), that they glow in their emissive spectrum. The glow around the turret could be plasma which leaked out without being accelerated for some reason. The warmup is the phase when the plasmifying process is already working, but the acceleration isn't; and cooldown would be when the accelerator is already off, but a cloud of particles is still gathered around the turret (perhaps still bombarded by mucho electrons).
I'm a layman in these things, but that was an interesting reading BengalTiger.
Is there any compilation of theories about Freespace weapons?
-
Another interesting option for interception, IMHO, is a Loki. It's fast, tough, with a small profile, has good maneuverability, and its reactor can support even the most energy demanding weapons.
Absolutely. As long as missiles aren't a priority, it's definitely a contender(though running away and calling in a support ship once you're several kilometers away from any pursuers is an option), and the extra energy can always be transferred into shields on demand.
Disturbing for a Great-War-era prototype stealth fighter(something supposed to have a minimal EM signature), it is. Better shields(double!) and hull than the non-stealth Valkyrie(and Apollo, at that), while having nearly the same top-speed, Herc I-level energy output and cannon energy storage?
Don't tell me 32 years couldn't improve the Valk's shields to a much more acceptable level. Or for that matter, especially looking at the Erinyes' afterburners, tell me the cutting edge(GTVA's "newest fighter", first combat field test during the Second Shivan Incursion) Perseus interceptor shouldn't have better engines than that.
-
I'm a layman in these things, but that was an interesting reading BengalTiger.
Is there any compilation of theories about Freespace weapons?
I think that only Shivan Theories got their place in the FS Wiki.
A weapons/technologies section with theories/ideas selected as the best would also be a nice addition.
Don't tell me 32 years couldn't improve the Valk's shields to a much more acceptable level. Or for that matter, especially looking at the Erinyes' afterburners, tell me the cutting edge(GTVA's "newest fighter", first combat field test during the Second Shivan Incursion) Perseus interceptor shouldn't have better engines than that.
Well, there's "replace an old fighter" and there's "officially doesn't exist".
The GTF Perseus is the newest fighter in the GTVA's arsenal. Slated to replace the aging Valkyrie as the Alliance's primary interceptor, the Perseus's high max speed and maneuverability make it ideal to hunt and destroy enemy bombers. Perseus fighters have been assigned to the 3rd Battle Group on a trial basis, with wide deployment expected after the OpEval period. Primary weapons include the Subach HL-7 and Prometheus cannon, with secondary loads of Harpoon and Hornet missiles. Preliminary results have shown the Perseus to be a superb fighter.
The tech description says the Perseus is new, but it doesn't say it's cutting edge. It may be a replacement for the Valk to lower maintainance costs (the part where wide deployment is expected even gives a hint it isn't too expensive); just like the Boa replaces the Ursa but isn't a better ship at all.
-
Newest fighter. The Command Brief for TSM-122x/Training 6(a.k.a. our introduction to the 242nd Suicide Kings) also claims, "The Perseus is the next-generation interceptor, the fastest fighter in the GTVA." Admittedly, it contradicts the Horus' Tech Room description, but it does suggest the Perseus should have been quicker than it currently is.
EDIT: My rationale also was that I'd believe a fighter clearly developed during a serious, ongoing war(18+ months), will probably have more focus on improved performance than on cost-cutting.
To be fair, an as-is Perseus with the added speed of a Horus or Valk is a pretty scary concept; I'd settle for something in the 150 or 155 range, with some relatively meaningful AB stamina(say, Aburn Fuel 350, Aburn Burn Rate 50? Still 25% less efficient consumption than the Valk and 50 less fuel reserve(reflecting the more powerful engines and improved reactor working to overcome the added weight of hull and weapons, sort of like the Ares)).
-
On default ETS settings, the Perseus is actually slower than the Valkyrie. As a benchmark, use the maximum afterburner velocity of the SF Manticore, which is 155 m/s. The only Terran and Vasudan ships that are capable of matching that speed are the Valkyrie, Horus, Pegasus and Ptah.
-
I don't think I'd mind the Perseus's lower max afterburner speed nearly as much if its capacity was substantially higher. As-is, it isn't that much better in that regard than one or two other Terran ships, whereas the Valkyrie was far-and-away better than anything else in the GTA fleet. You could cover a hefty distance in a very short period of time if you kept that afterburner pegged.
-
Newest fighter. The Command Brief for TSM-122x/Training 6(a.k.a. our introduction to the 242nd Suicide Kings) also claims, "The Perseus is the next-generation interceptor, the fastest fighter in the GTVA." Admittedly, it contradicts the Horus' Tech Room description, but it does suggest the Perseus should have been quicker than it currently is.
EDIT: My rationale also was that I'd believe a fighter clearly developed during a serious, ongoing war(18+ months), will probably have more focus on improved performance than on cost-cutting.
Remember that the Terran part of the GTVA is after some economical crisis from being separated from Earth in addition to that war with the NTF. Also note that the Perseus is the newest production fighter, which will be used in large numbers. I wouldn't be surprized if the Erynies and Ares were newer designs.
-
The development of the Perseus, or at least the minimum design specs that would have been issued to cause it's development, are probably older than 18 months.
Now, everyone's complaining the Perseus is designed wrong. I agree, marginally, but would argue that Valkyrie is designed even more wrong.
The basic task of an interceptor is engage enemy bombers and destroy them before they can release their weapons. Only two requirements arise from this: speed and firepower. In the FSverse where many bombers also have a turret and/or Piranhas and Synaptics, and all bombers have escort fighters, some durabilty is also required to ensure you get your interceptor back.
Of these three requirements, the Valkyrie has only speed. It lacks firepower slightly in comparison to its contemporaries and it heavily lacks durabilty. Firepower is marginally excuseable since it's from the pre-shields age and things were more fragile then, but this only makes the Valkyrie's extremely weak hull even more of a problem. Both the Osiris and Amun have two turrets firing what are very powerful weapons in the pre-shield days and a Valkyrie attacking a defensive box of such ships is far too likely to be lost to their turrets, to say nothing of being intercepted in turn by escorting fighters.
The Perseus has some speed, but not as much as the Valkyrie. It does, however, offer firepower and durability at least no worse than its contemporaries, improving in two categories over the one it lost in.
The truth is that all FS interceptors, including every fan design I've ever seen with the exception of BlackWolf's Draco, are designed wrong. High manuverability should be the province of Space Superiority designs, who actually need it for their assigned role of dogfighting. Interceptors only need to outmanuver bombers; they should be fast, well-protected designs with average or above-average firepower and only enough manuverability to outfly their primary targets.
(If this sounds like it would obselete assault fighters, then it might if the interceptor and assaults aren't specialized into their roles enough, but as it stands, FS interceptors obselete space superiority fighters anyways because they're not specialized into their roles enough.)
-
The truth is that all FS interceptors, including every fan design I've ever seen with the exception of BlackWolf's Draco, are designed wrong. High manuverability should be the province of Space Superiority designs, who actually need it for their assigned role of dogfighting. Interceptors only need to outmanuver bombers; they should be fast, well-protected designs with average or above-average firepower and only enough manuverability to outfly their primary targets.
Looking at the Myrm, I actually was thinking much the same thing. Put some really decent thrusters/engines and a better reactor in there(supporting the increased AB power and a somewhat heavier shield), and it would be a beautiful 'Heavy Interceptor'. Then redesignate the unmodified Perseus as Space Superiority, and all is right with the world.
EDIT: I'd say Heavy Assault fighters are/should be slowish craft with cavernous missile banks and Maxim capability(non-bomb-carrying light bombers that can still defend themselves). The Erinyes needs a redesignation there(Strategic Space Superiority? :P ), but otherwise, I think it works.
-
Of these three requirements, the Valkyrie has only speed. It lacks firepower slightly in comparison to its contemporaries and it heavily lacks durability.
Considering that the Valk is one of only two fighters in FS1 that can carry the Banshee, which rips through shields and hulls alike with frightening ease, I can't see where you're coming from with this. Sure, it can only carry 8 Phoenix missiles, but there's something to be said for staying power, especially with the way bombers come in waves and waves that don't leave you a lot of time to re-arm.
The problem really boils down to terminology that doesn't fit- "interceptor" is a term derived from modern air warfare, where a single missile will deal with pretty much anything. In Freespace, some of the heavier AI bombers are really approaching the firepower and size of Corvettes (11 guns on the Seraphim? Hooooo...) Their defenses are so thick that you really need a heavy assault fighter to batter through them, and absorb turret fire in turn.
In light of that it might be a mistake to judge the Valk as an interceptor. Just like it for what it is- very vast, and very manuverable. I always disliked it's fragility- you could get rammed to death in it, whereas in a Herc the same impacts would do nothing- but it was just the thing for those missions when you had to get from one side of a 2-k long ship to the other in a right hurry. The Tech room description describes it as the successor to the "Angel Scout Fighter," and I think that is a better description of the Valk then "interceptor."
-
Considering that the Valk is one of only two fighters in FS1 that can carry the Banshee, which rips through shields and hulls alike with frightening ease
Decent on shields(good by FS1 standards), it's marginal against hulls(slightly less damage per shot than the Avenger), and carries a whopping 1.6 energy usage per shot(Avenger is 0.3, Prom-S is 1.0, Kayser is 1.2), and on a ship with 1/3 less weapon energy reserve than the Perseus(same power output), it's quite significant.
Equipping double Banshees makes you virtually ineffectual against anything that isn't a fighter, though a mix of Banshee/Avenger is pretty good.
I would say that if the Valk could carry Prom-S, it could simply fight by outranging any canon turret gun on bombers, though sometimes you don't have the luxury of "stay > 1km, but < 1.5 km away". It would be a pretty effective mobile Trebuchet delivery system(and could 'theoretically' fire the same number of double-fire salvoes that the Perseus(or Horus) can, then run back to the nearest support ship for more, faster than any other Terran fighter).
Of course, neither were likely available at the time the GTVA made the decision to create a new interceptor.
EDIT: Kayser energy usage I quoted was too high.
-
Considering that the Valk is one of only two fighters in FS1 that can carry the Banshee, which rips through shields and hulls alike with frightening ease, I can't see where you're coming from with this. Sure, it can only carry 8 Phoenix missiles, but there's something to be said for staying power, especially with the way bombers come in waves and waves that don't leave you a lot of time to re-arm.
The Banshee's ultimately going to hurt you when you hit hull, and Neps/Seras have not-inconsiderable hulls too. Ultimately your ability to kill bombers rapidly is directly proportional to your remaining load of missiles. Run out of missiles and you will kill things much slower. Doesn't matter what you're packing in the primaries.
The problem really boils down to terminology that doesn't fit- "interceptor" is a term derived from modern air warfare, where a single missile will deal with pretty much anything. In Freespace, some of the heavier AI bombers are really approaching the firepower and size of Corvettes (11 guns on the Seraphim? Hooooo...) Their defenses are so thick that you really need a heavy assault fighter to batter through them, and absorb turret fire in turn.
The terminology "interceptor" in fact dates back to WWI when people were intercepting zepplins, and the role and mission profile is just as old. The world's first dedicated interceptor was probably the Hawker Hurricane; in that time and place speed was not as great an issue because of the forewarning radar provides, so the Hurricane just needed firepower and durability, and it had those.
FS presents a similar tactical paradigm of relatively long dogfights against heavily armed and armored bombers with turrets, but it also throws in subspace, making speed a required element because you have little warning of impending attack.
Granted more modern interceptor designs like the F-106, F-14, or MiG-25/31 tend to also include high speed in their requirements, but they also go the relatively low manuverability route FS interceptors don't take.
-
I just got back and I'm still not sure how this turned into a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of my favorite FS1 Terran fighter but yeah Banshees over Avengers works well though I played around with Banshees over Prometheuses as well sometimes
-
You mean the Zeus?
Cause the Athena (mk2) has the same fire points as a FS1 Athena.
WRONG!
There is no athena mk2 in the fs2 campaign. What i was actually referring to was the artemis. Fs2's knock of the artemis which has crappy primary firing points to balance out the fact that this light bomber actually carries bombs. But, either way, i'll try flying the zeus next time and have a less crappier time in fs2 with light bombers (the zeus is so easy to forget).
EDIT: haven't been here for days.
-
You mean the Zeus?
Cause the Athena (mk2) has the same fire points as a FS1 Athena.
WRONG!
There is no athena mk2 in the fs2 campaign. What i was actually referring to was the artemis. Fs2's knock of the artemis which has crappy primary firing points to balance out the fact that this light bomber actually carries bombs. But, either way, i'll try flying the zeus next time and have a less crappier time in fs2 with light bombers (the zeus is so easy to forget).
Uh, I believe TrashMan made an Athena Mk2, which he is probably referring to.
-
Yes there is an athena mark 2 in existence, but it is not part of the fs2 campaign ship list. This whole thing is a big misunderstanding because i couldn't remember the name of the artemis which i earlier referred to as "fs2's version of the athena", which i apparently didn't think that there was also another light bomber in fs2 as called the zeus (i tend to forget this one because i'm not sure if you even get a chance to fly it in the campaign since the ntf took most of them).
-
Yes, you can fly the Zeus in the main FS2 campaign, and I have made use of that facility in the past.
The mission I used it in (in which it was available - I'm not sure of the other missions where you perhaps could have used it...) was with the Mjolnir beam emplacements, where the agility of the Zeus was useful for my purposes in blasting the NTF.
-
you can use in in both 64th raptor missions, and i think you might be able to use it in Slaying Ravana, but not sure about that. can also use it in the nebula mission of the demo, but that doesnt count now that i think about it, there arent enough good bombing missions in fs2 where you fly terran bombers.
-
you can use in in both 64th raptor missions, and i think you might be able to use it in Slaying Ravana, but not sure about that. can also use it in the nebula mission of the demo, but that doesnt count now that i think about it, there arent enough good bombing missions in fs2 where you fly terran bombers.
I think thats because of the squadron element in the story, while flying in terran squadrons they have a strongly defined roles so most of the time you fly fighters because your are in fighter squadrons with only a very short stint in a bomber light squadron, the vasudan missions seemed a little more relaxed on the subject though it was more like playing FS1 in that regard.
-
Granted more modern interceptor designs like the F-106, F-14, or MiG-25/31 tend to also include high speed in their requirements, but they also go the relatively low manuverability route FS interceptors don't take.
:wtf:
-
:wtf:
What, you think a Tomcat can turn inside a single-engine single-seat aircraft? :P
-
i think he might have been referring to the freespace end of that.
-
:wtf:
What, you think a Tomcat can turn inside a single-engine single-seat aircraft? :P
Like I've always told TrashMan, there's a reason they called it the steel cloud.
-
who called it that? :wtf:
-
Okay, apparently it was aluminum cloud. :nervous:
-
This is actually a pretty heated argument (with regards to the Tomcat) - it really depends on who you talk to.
I've actually had a conversation with a USN Lt.Cmdr. (can't remember his name - it was at an airshow in Prescott, AZ) who noted that the 'Cat was more maneuverable than the F-15. He was flying the F/A-18F at the time when I was having the conversation, however. The (Pre-Revolutionary) Iranians also thought the plane was superior: given the size of Iran in comparison to Israel (who opted for the Eagle), the selection of an interceptor with very long-range BVR capabilities made more sense... and probably saved the program as well.
That said, as the pilots in question here were not push-overs in any regard, it might be fairly safe to conclude that the close-range fighting capabilities of both the F-14 and the F-15 would be comparable. So, if there's any single-engine fighter you'd think the F-15 could turn inside of, there's a good chance the Tomcat could do the same.
-
there's not a lot the f-15 can out-turn close in either.
-
roguevalkyrie shakes his head with an amused smile as he counts the loops this discussion has gone through. " From discussing whether or not Freespace has planet-based starfighters to discussing the strengths and weakness of my Favorite Terran FS1 fighter and some of it's FS2 terran counterpart to discussing strengths and weaknesses of FS interceptors and RL Interceptors to comparing manuverability of RL interceptors to single engine fighters.
-
Okay, apparently it was aluminum cloud. :nervous:
I thought that was the C-5.
-
:wtf:
What, you think a Tomcat can turn inside a single-engine single-seat aircraft? :P
No.
Of course there are more manouverable craft, but the Tomcat isn't/wasn't sluggish. It's farely agile.
It's liek saying that the Perseus is sluggish, because the Loki can turn faster.
-
roguevalkyrie shakes his head with an amused smile as he counts the loops this discussion has gone through. " From discussing whether or not Freespace has planet-based starfighters to discussing the strengths and weakness of my Favorite Terran FS1 fighter and some of it's FS2 terran counterpart to discussing strengths and weaknesses of FS interceptors and RL Interceptors to comparing manuverability of RL interceptors to single engine fighters.
just another day at HLP
-
I never cared much for the valkyrie. Fs1 touted it more as a superiority fighter than an interceptor. Fs1 training missions didn't show you how to target bombs and all that good stuff that's handy when you're flying intercept. I didn't get the idea to use bomb targeting until i went across the fs2 interceptor training missions where they actually gave you some very good ideas when flying an interceptor.
Fs1 randomly hands me an interceptor, i treat it exactly as a fighter until i discover it is an interceptor. In which case i regard the valkyrie only good for intercepting for it's weak ass hull and shields. I never used the valkyrie at all until i discovered it's real purpose as an interceptor in fs2 training. Aside from that it wasn't much better than the serapis, so hell if i want to fly with it as a fighter. I much better like the perseus. It actually can fight, and is awesome at intercepting.
The short answer to the valkyrie for me is that a tool is more effective when you know how to use it.