Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - FS2 Required => Blue Planet => Topic started by: Mars on February 15, 2011, 08:50:22 pm
-
Other than fluff (enhanced sensor package) is it just a very similar replacement for the Myrmidon with a more attractive target profile, or am I missing something.
-
Well as an added tidbit there are a few missions in WiH where destroying Auroras will knock down enemy AI classes a bit.
-
It's smaller. That probably counts for a lot when you're worried about how many you can fit on the hanger deck to help you fight off the Shivan hordes.
-
Well as an added tidbit there are a few missions in WiH where destroying Auroras will knock down enemy AI classes a bit.
So Auroras increase the intelligence of GTVA fighters? :p
-
Isn't the Aurora capable of carrying a wider selection of missiles? Along with all the other benefits mentioned here.
Really, unless they're massively expensive in the fluff, I'm surprised we don't see more Auroras than Myrmidons at this point. Even if the 14th was its first combat deployment (cant remember and not near FS computer,) you would still think that at this point in the war they could have produced a fair amount of Aurora Squadrons to replace the aging Myrm at the front. ELINT/EW craft they may be, they seem to outperform many current GTVA fighter designs. Stripping out the E-war gear for some more armor or a better generator and creating a combat variant seems like a logical conclusion.
-
I think the Atalantas and Persei both outperform the Aurora in terms of maneuverability, so I'd assume those are what's replacing the Myrmidon, the Atalanta even has an equal amount of firepower. I think the fluff says the Loki is being replaced by the Aurora. The reason why I asked about the Myrmidon in particular is because the Aurora and Myrmidon are very, very similar in terms of performance, but the Aurora is better, mostly because of its size.
They also apparently make the other fighters "smarter" and yes, the Aurora also carries Harpoons! (I'd forgotten about that)
-
They also apparently make the other fighters "smarter" and yes, the Aurora also carries Harpoons! (I'd forgotten about that)
Yet another reason to use more of them, though as I noted above, cost may be a factor there. And even though the Atalanta easily outperforms the Aurora (as it should,) I generally find the Aurora to make a better interceptor than the Perseus, even with the loss of speed.
Now, I have no idea what the tables look like, so I could just be imagining things, But I've always felt the Aurora to be better armored, shielded, and packing greater reserves of weapon energy than the Perseus, while still boasting comparable maneuverability. IIRC she also carries a greater supply of missiles a well. Now, If I am right, and these things are true, the Aurora has effectively obsoleted two fighters at once right there, even without factoring in the Elint gear. And having a wing of Auroras all feeding targeting information and enemy positions to each other during a dogfight must be terrifying for their enemies, assuming the birds (and pilots) can keep up with it.
And this isnt even getting into possibly producing an upgunned Space Superiority variant by utilizing the space left over after stripping out the electronics suite.
-
Values for Perseus, Aurora, Myrmidon
Rotational Dampening (lower is better): .35 | .325 | .35
Rotation time (in seconds: 3.3, 3.3, 3.3 | 4.5, 4.7, 5.6 | 4.0, 3.7, 5
Hitpoints: 265 | 250 | 290
Shields: 350 | 360 | 390
Max Primary Energy: 150.0 | 150.0 | 150.0
Power Output: 2.0 | 2.25 | 2.4
When I first saw it in the tables, I didn't believe it; the Aurora seemed like an upgunned Perseus to me too. The Aurora has pretty bad maneuverability for a fighter, worse than the Myrmidon by some measures, and carries the same number of missiles as both the Perseus and Myrmidon. Armored and shielded similarly, same recharge, same everything basically, except that the Myrmidon and Aurora have two more guns, and the Perseus is very small, the Aurora is the size of an Erinyes, and the Myrmidon is the size of a whale.
That rot-damp you see is the delay before a fighter starts to turn (higher numbers make the fighter feel more sluggish, and makes the fighter feel heavier) the rotation time is how long the fighter takes to make a complete turn in the X, Y, and Z axis. The Aurora has a low rotation damp but a high rotation time, so it feels "light" but its actually pretty sluggish.
-
Wow. So then I guess gameplay wise a player Aurora is better than a Myrm, unless you want to play figher-bomber for some reason.
Perseus has the advantage in speed and maneuverability, though at the expense of guns. Odd that I thought The Aurora had more weapon energy, given it has more gun mounts. Balors :mad:
At this point I guess It comes down to whether or not the player will ever get to engage in some sort of E-war style stuff in the future, such as that Tev campaign.
They certainly win out on the AI front though, on account of the buffing of other fighters. Can Multiple Auroras stack their buffs on each other, in a manner similar to the scenario I described earlier?
-
I thought the Aurora was replacing the Loki?
-
I think the fluff says the Loki is being replaced by the Aurora.
The reason why I asked about the Myrmidon in particular is because the Aurora and Myrmidon are very, very similar in terms of performance, but the Aurora is better, mostly because of its size.
-
The Aurora replaces the Loki, nothing to do with the Myrmidon. Aurora is a recon which can fill up a number of other secondary functions. It's a scout with teeth, capable of surviving an engagement as opposed to the more vulnerable Loki (which was designed to draw it's strenght from being stealthy initially), we even saw it in AoA. The Myrmidon is more of an aged all rounder.
The Myrmidon was supplemented by the Persues, as the GTVA thought the Persues made a great superiority fighter. The brand new Atalanta is the next-generation fighter which takes over this role as both a superiority fighter and interceptor.
[/quote]The reason why I asked about the Myrmidon in particular is because the Aurora and Myrmidon are very, very similar in terms of performance, but the Aurora is better, mostly because of its size.
[/quote]
You cannot compare an Aurora to a Myrmidon, with the Aurora being a much more modern fightercraft. If you put it's contemporary the Atalanta next to it then suddenly the Aurora pales in comparison in that role.
-
Makes sense. I assume this is all stuff I missed in the Techroom somewhere?
On a slightly related note, where does the Draco fit into all this? It seems about as dangerous as your average Perseus, maybe a bit faster.
(Again, sorry I cant check myself. Hospitals dont take kindly to desk tops.)
-
The Draco is a true interceptor - with a deep afterburner and a max afterburner velocity of 210 (compared to the Perseus' 140), it's meant to handle situations like high-intensity convoy defense in the later missions of FS2.
-
Holy crap, I didn't realize it was that fast. Does it have reverse thrust like the Kent, or has that become a decidedly UEF thing?
-
No it doesn't as far as I know. :)
-
Wow. So then I guess gameplay wise a player Aurora is better than a Myrm, unless you want to play figher-bomber for some reason.
What? It's [the Myrm] a fraction of second more sluggish (on par with the Perseus), noticeably more maneuverable, and also noticeably more survivable in both aspects with a boost to energy output as well. So... the Aurora is smaller, and it can carry the Harpoon, in a time where a Tornado swarm is more likely to kill an enemy fighter (which they can both carry the same amount of). That's about it (of course, that's not considering purely fluff based reasons like sensor suites and EW).
-
Wow. So then I guess gameplay wise a player Aurora is better than a Myrm, unless you want to play figher-bomber for some reason.
What? It's [the Myrm] a fraction of second more sluggish (on par with the Perseus), noticeably more maneuverable, and also noticeably more survivable in both aspects with a boost to energy output as well. So... the Aurora is smaller, and it can carry the Harpoon, in a time where a Tornado swarm is more likely to kill an enemy fighter (which they can both carry the same amount of). That's about it (of course, that's not considering purely fluff based reasons like sensor suites and EW).
It's not purely fluff, the Aurora has AWACS and can detect stealth and expand sensor range in nebulas and crap.
-
It's not purely fluff, the Aurora has AWACS and can detect stealth and expand sensor range in nebulas and crap.
That. And Harpoons. The Aurora takes the cake this time around, IMO.
EDIT: I should mention I have terrible luck with Tornadoes, which coupled with the low amount of volleys you can carry in comparison to the Harpoon, makes me favor the latter missile.
-
It's not purely fluff, the Aurora has AWACS and can detect stealth and expand sensor range in nebulas and crap.
That. And Harpoons. The Aurora takes the cake this time around, IMO.
Tornado > Harpoon. Takes two or more harpoon double volleys to down most FS fighters, where a single Tornado double volley will splash just about all normal fighters (haven't tried them against the newer GTVA fighters yet). Add to that a longer range, and more submunitions to increase you chance of not whiffing the shot completely due to CMs. Against the superior UEF fighters, a higher chance of a one shot kill isn't something to sneeze at.
Oh hey, there's an edit there. Yes, you get half the shots with Tornados that you do with Harpoons, they do double the damage (per volley for no net loss of damage) at longer range.
-
To be fair, I've never flown against a UEF fighter, as I've never played MP and no mods exist (yet, I understand you're working on one) where you fly as the GTVA against UEF craft. My preference for Harpoons comes from fighting basic FS2 craft with them, where they stand a good chance of one-shotting Shivan ships on double fire, and will heavily damage all fighter craft and most bombers, provided their shields have been weakened. Against tougher, more agile UEF craft I'm sure I would reevaluate my view.
-
Tornado > Harpoon. Takes two or more harpoon double volleys to down most FS fighters, where a single Tornado double volley will splash just about all normal fighters (haven't tried them against the newer GTVA fighters yet). Add to that a longer range, and more submunitions to increase you chance of not whiffing the shot completely due to CMs. Against the superior UEF fighters, a higher chance of a one shot kill isn't something to sneeze at.
Oh hey, there's an edit there. Yes, you get half the shots with Tornados that you do with Harpoons, they do double the damage (per volley for no net loss of damage) at longer range.
In WiH, in any level of difficulty above medium, good luck ever getting a lock with Tornados, except maybe in a head on pass. The UEF and new GTVA fighters are simply too maneuverable to get a lock.
It's not purely fluff, the Aurora has AWACS and can detect stealth and expand sensor range in nebulas and crap.
Holy crap . . . how did I miss that?
-
Harpoons won't reliably double shot a Mara on medium difficulty (read: they won't. Ever. 3% hull is a *****). Tornados will do so reliably until Hard, and still have a good chance on Insane.
Harpoons versus Kents and Uhlans are a joke. Haha. Even if you manage to hit them on anything higher than medium difficulty, they won't go down in one shot, and if you're keeping them reliably centered long enough for another shot, you should be wasting them with primaries.
Point well taken about Tornados above Medium though, Mars. Hence why the better maneuverability of the Myrm marks it as clearly superior. :p
-
Well I suppose its a good thing I tend to play medium then. And yes, Maras and their damnable ability to just barely scrape by missile hits is a problem on anything above Very Easy. Hell, I've had them survive direct double volley Hornet hits before. Incidentally, I also enjoy myself immensely when fighting them. Always preferred guns anyway, and enemies that make me use them are great.
-
You managed to hit something smaller than a cruiser with hornets? Color me impressed. They're far and away the most useless standard combat missile in FS2.
-
They're great against stuff that assault fighters like to attack, though.
-
But then you can just carry a ****load of tempests and do the job better and faster. Those have the added benefit of being good against non-stationary fighters.
-
Don't even get me started on that craptacular "ordnance." The only thing I ever use them for is cruiser and Freighter suppression, since they seem to do more damage to those targets then Tornadoes. Which has always struck me as odd.
On a funnier note, in the Instance i was referring to, the Mara actually ran directly into my volley of Hornets while trying to dodge Harpoons from my wingmen. Beyond that, I don't believe I've ever seen Hornets be even remotely useful.
-
But then you can just carry a ****load of tempests and do the job better and faster. Those have the added benefit of being good against non-stationary fighters.
They're not as long-ranged (650 m is well inside flak and beam envelopes, 1330 is at the edge) and don't look as awesome.
-
Infyrno missiles are actually pretty good anti-convoy weapons. A "poor-man's bomb" as the PI walkthrough puts it.
-
The Dirk is a lot like Hornets, and it's good for taking out a couple of Scimitars before they get in range. Similarly you can use Hornets in FS2 to maybe get a mara kill or two in before you get in range.
I seem to remember really liking Hornets in Freespace
-
In FS1, they were actually one of the most usefull missiles, but then, missiles in general acted differently in FS1.
Interceptors, for instance, were almost completely useless, while Hornets were frequently able to land at least two hits (4 on double fire).
At least, that's how I remember it, I played FS1 on Easy, long ago.
-
The Hornet flies a lag-pursuit curve. Fire at a high deflection angle and you will hit nothing.
-
Isn't DPS on hornets slightly higher than tempests if you load two banks and cycle between them to avoid the cooldowns?
(yeah, that's mostly pointless too since you're stuck with two banks of hornets)
And I think Infyrnos were table hacked in PI. I couldn't come close to duplicating their effectiveness in other campaigns IIRC.