Instead, this fighter jumps in, ideally within range of their long range missiles (like the Trebuchet, though I suppose Cyclops could also be equipped and used if it jumps right within range, or close to it, to begin with), targets fighters, ships, subsystems, whatever, fires off the missiles, and then jumps away ASAP. It might stick around to see the effect of its missiles if there's no danger in doing so.
Don't we get exactly this in the Ares treb strike? Seems to me the Ares fills every single bullet point in your list. The only maybe is the "cheap" part, but then Treb strikes seem so low risk I don't really think it matters.
What the GTVA really needs is an anti-subsystem missile that can't be shot down and isn't lag-pursuit like that PoS Stiletto-II. The Treb was that in FS2, but now it doesn't have puncture damage, making it pretty much useless against uparmoured subsystems like the Medea's beam cannons (or whatever guns the Feds or Shivans decide to uparmour).
i believe that the subspace missile strike is a much better alternative. why faff around with jump -> fart missile load -> jump and expose valuable pilots to needless danger, when you have TAG-C's, which when they hit something, summon that horrid subspace missile rape?
I do think one big challenge would be fitting and powering those jump drives on a small spaceframe.
I do think one big challenge would be fitting and powering those jump drives on a small spaceframe.Yeah, sprint jump drive are probably only feasible because you can get a meson reactor on recent warships to power them. The only non-TEI ship with a sprint jump drive is the Carthage, and it was just an experimental prototype. I doubt you can fit a meson reactor on a fighter, and I doubt a fighter has enough output to power two drives, especially when a single drive has more than a quick enough recharge rate to make the whole concept redundant to begin with.
Because you'd make each and every missile vastly more expensive because each one would have its own subspace drive, and each drive would receive exactly one use. That's the OPPOSITE of cost-effective, which is what the whole point of this idea is.Standard, intra-system subspace technology has been mastered and mass-producible for probably around a century by the time of BP. We're not talking about putting an inter-system or sprint drive on a torpedo here.
Yeah, sprint jump drive are probably only feasible because you can get a meson reactor on recent warships to power them. The only non-TEI ship with a sprint jump drive is the Carthage, and it was just an experimental prototype. I doubt you can fit a meson reactor on a fighter, and I doubt a fighter has enough output to power two drives, especially when a single drive has more than a quick enough recharge rate to make the whole concept redundant to begin with.I think that "sprint drive" is not a specific technology, but the concept of a drive fast enough to jump twice within the same engagement, however you implement it. The GVD What'sitsname Hatshepsut can also do it, and its implementation looked different from Terran ships'. So I'm with The E, that it probably wouldn't make sense to put something on a fighter and call it a "sprint drive," because they can already do that.
Instead, this fighter jumps in, ideally within range of their long range missiles (like the Trebuchet, though I suppose Cyclops could also be equipped and used if it jumps right within range, or close to it, to begin with), targets fighters, ships, subsystems, whatever, fires off the missiles, and then jumps away ASAP. It might stick around to see the effect of its missiles if there's no danger in doing so.
Don't we get exactly this in the Ares treb strike? Seems to me the Ares fills every single bullet point in your list. The only maybe is the "cheap" part, but then Treb strikes seem so low risk I don't really think it matters.
Instead, this fighter jumps in, ideally within range of their long range missiles (like the Trebuchet, though I suppose Cyclops could also be equipped and used if it jumps right within range, or close to it, to begin with), targets fighters, ships, subsystems, whatever, fires off the missiles, and then jumps away ASAP. It might stick around to see the effect of its missiles if there's no danger in doing so.
Don't we get exactly this in the Ares treb strike? Seems to me the Ares fills every single bullet point in your list. The only maybe is the "cheap" part, but then Treb strikes seem so low risk I don't really think it matters.
What the GTVA really needs is an anti-subsystem missile that can't be shot down and isn't lag-pursuit like that PoS Stiletto-II. The Treb was that in FS2, but now it doesn't have puncture damage, making it pretty much useless against uparmoured subsystems like the Medea's beam cannons (or whatever guns the Feds or Shivans decide to uparmour).
It's also unique in that it can jump in and out of the fight very quickly, unlike the Ares. Seriously; imagine the first mission to WiH. Only this time, instead of sending a bunch of fighters and a single Ares treb strike, you have 20 Ballistas jump within 4000 KM of the convoy/UEF escort, fire off 40 Trebs, and jump out. Then you send in a wing of bombers to kill every ship in the convoy with impunity. This is possible, because Ballistas are cheap as hell, their pilots require no ACM training/experience, and they rarely get shot down.
The Ballista seems to be a very specific design that fills a single role, outside that role it would be pure cannon fodder. e.g. if you lost your AWACS support & the ability to execute precision jumps- with slow speed and little armour a single Kent (200m/s afterburn!) with Slammers could easily wipe out a squadron, or at least force them to withdraw for fear of being wiped out.
You're pairing it against a ship it would not have been designed to fight. This is patently unfair. No known Shivan craft has performance comparable to a Kentauroi and the Shivans don't have missiles comparable to Slammers that we know of either.
It also ignores that the Trebuchet is frequently used to disarm larger ships, it was still originally designed to function against enemy bombers by allowing extremely long range interceptions. A ship like the Ballista would have at least two roles, one of them in itself the combination of two others. The first is as suppression of enemy weapons for strike packages. The second is as destroyer group defense; this would combine the original Trebuchet role of anti-bomber work with the adopted one of being able to disarm enemy ships.
In general I agree that this is not a likely design, but belittling it in this way is disingenuous.
BUT, there is the GTB Rhea, which for all intents and purposes seems to be the replacement for the Athena that the Zeus just wasn't. I have no idea why the bomber's missile banks (as of the wiki) are smaller than the Ares'...In order to not repeat the mistake of making a hugely expensive craft like the Ares, obviously. Remember the average survivability of bombers in the field ? You don't need to carry dozens of torpedoes, you'll be unable to fire them all before going down anyway. And if you're just going pop-up treb strike, you still have more than enough room for half the price or so.
many of your ideas are contradicting themselves. your notion is to have a cheap missile boat that does nothing else, but then suggest it's better than an Ares in case it DOES get attacked, it can somehow defend itself better than a heavily armed assault fighter with its paper armor and 40 m/s max engine? and if the idea is to just spam long range missiles, why is it that it has more short-range firepower than an ares, which is second only to the Ery in that regard? as for survivability, that comes from the tactic, not the hardware. ANY fighter used as a short shock jumper can be expected to return home unharmed. and BP has already demonstrated you don't need special or extra jump drives to do it.
Which means that since delivery isn't the reason why we don't see more pop-up strikes, the Ballista is utterly redundant.
You have put a lot of thought into your doctrine, but how well would it hold up with the upcoming introduction - on both the UEF and GTVA sides - of capship-fired countermeasures?
With its ability to jump in and out without delay, it can jump in to closer range, lock and fire other kinds of missiles, and jump out without losses. Those missiles could be Slammers, EMP's, TAGs, Harpoons, Tornadoes, etc.
Also, they actually work best on heatseekers, aspect seekers just go dumbfire when jammed, making the capship CMs not very useful against trebs if the ship is immobile.
I still want to hear the response to this!QuoteYou have put a lot of thought into your doctrine, but how well would it hold up with the upcoming introduction - on both the UEF and GTVA sides - of capship-fired countermeasures?
Missiles in FS2/BP don't really work as you'd expect them to, or realistically, both in terms of using and countering them. You can't shoot them down (well, all but a few kinds of missiles anyway), and they're easy to evade unless in large numbers or when evasion is more difficult. They also have absurdly short range--a modern medium-long range anti-fighter missile has a range of over ONE HUNDRED KILOMETERS, and travels at speeds around Mach 5. They're maneuverable and not at all cruise missiles, either. The decades-old Phoenix missile the F-14 Tomcat used had a range of 190KM and traveled at Mach 5, and a Tomcat could carry at least four of them at a time.
Since when? Every time I've seen decoying a work, it acted just like that. Unless the "decoyed penalty" comes into play, that is, and the Treb explodes before hitting the target.Also, they actually work best on heatseekers, aspect seekers just go dumbfire when jammed, making the capship CMs not very useful against trebs if the ship is immobile.
Incorrect.
I thought the original suggestion for the Ballista was to fight the UEF, with examples from The Cost of War & Delenda Est? If that's the case then a comparison vrs the Kent is fair enough, Ballista's would still be deployed to engage targets defended by Kents (or vrs the Kents themselves). I'll admit the comparison is probably the toughest one a Ballista would face which isn't entirely fair, but that's war, fairness doesn't come into it.
3) After hitting their targets, they jump right back out. Enemy jump-5 response teams arrive minutes afterward, finding absolutely no enemies to attack, pursue, or track.
Even with just a 40MPH/KPH (which does the game use?) engine and no afterburner, it would still keep up with (and in some cases outrun) any ship (SHIP, not fighter/craft).
I'm not trying to apply total realism here; I'm just using it to make a point. Which is below.QuoteMissiles in FS2/BP don't really work as you'd expect them to, or realistically, both in terms of using and countering them. You can't shoot them down (well, all but a few kinds of missiles anyway), and they're easy to evade unless in large numbers or when evasion is more difficult. They also have absurdly short range--a modern medium-long range anti-fighter missile has a range of over ONE HUNDRED KILOMETERS, and travels at speeds around Mach 5. They're maneuverable and not at all cruise missiles, either. The decades-old Phoenix missile the F-14 Tomcat used had a range of 190KM and traveled at Mach 5, and a Tomcat could carry at least four of them at a time.
Careful - this way lies madness. ;)
Erm, the Ballista is far, far more than just a pop up Treb strike platform. Remember, you can jump in to within 2000m of a bunch of fighter wings, and fire massive salvos of missiles of any kind--Slammer, EMP, Harpoon, Tornado, Grimmler--you name it. Sure, human-players can dodge a couple Trebuchets, but how effectively can they evade 20 Tornadoes, two Harpoons, and a Slammer all at once? If it's hard for an experienced, good player, then all but the best pilots in the setting would be dead meat in the face of such an attack.
I think you've made a good case for your dedicated pop-up Treb strike platform, though I think you're slightly overselling its capabilities against maneuvering opponents; a good human pilot will simply never be hit by Treb fire, and the AI suffers only because it's just not very smart about fast aspect-seekers.
Capships launching flares will degrade some of the salvo into missing entirely, and decoy other weapons so that they strike the hull instead of their targeted subsystem.
But creating interesting doctrine for Blue Planet isn't about figuring out an optimum tactic that can 'win' the setting; it's about creating an interesting doctrine with strengths and weaknesses that lead to exciting gameplay and interesting stories. Even Steele, beloved as he is, is written with some key flaws. So here's my challenge: can you go a step further and come up with disadvantages, difficulties, and countermeasures applicable to your doctrine? Troubles that might be encountered in implementing it, and tactics that might be adopted by the OPFOR in response to it?I think they're one and the same, actually. You make an acceptably fair playing field (or as fair as you want the story/setup to be on a grand level), set up consistent rules, and try to come up with the best tech and strategy. The limiting factors are meta; what's a faction's economy and infrastructure like? Its culture? Experience? Etc.
A great many mods have put time and effort into coming up with awesome new ships and awesome new tactics, but Blue Planet always strives to create things that are interesting but in some way flawed.
Erm, the Ballista is far, far more than just a pop up Treb strike platform. Remember, you can jump in to within 2000m of a bunch of fighter wings, and fire massive salvos of missiles of any kind--Slammer, EMP, Harpoon, Tornado, Grimmler--you name it. Sure, human-players can dodge a couple Trebuchets, but how effectively can they evade 20 Tornadoes, two Harpoons, and a Slammer all at once? If it's hard for an experienced, good player, then all but the best pilots in the setting would be dead meat in the face of such an attack.
Flares? What? None of these missiles are heat-seeking! They're all radar, ladar, laser, or dumbfired! Chaff would never work, even on a larger scale (you can't make it look anything like the ship or a subsystem, and without high speed maneuvering, the entire dynamic/system/nature of chaff is rendered moot; you'd also need a gigantic amount of chaff for even a single usage, which is just plain impractical or unfeasible on capships)! You'd need ECM, and good ones. The only kind of ship that demonstrates that in any combat capacity is an AWACS ship, and those are rare and fragile.
And there's no way the UEF (or even the GTVA) could develop and implement such a system so quickly. I mean, we're talking years, unless it's your top priority, to deploy an effective version of it on more than a handful of ships. Rushing it would make the whole thing vastly more expensive, too.
To give you an idea, it'd be like implementing today's stealth technology onto naval ships.
Otherwise, you'd need to take them Up To Eleven (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOx_wHhitqk)
the scale you'd need for capships would make this unfeasible. Flares are much easier to launch, are far more cost/space efficient, and are ACTIVE countermeasures, as opposed to chaff, which is more passive--it's just metal. You can design a flare that, despite being the size of a mouse, burns like a super-hot fireball--even though it only lasts a few seconds at best, that's all it needs. Chaff is basically scrap metal. It isn't launched so much as released, and the high speed and maneuvering of the jet distances the chaff from the jet. Capships have no such option. You'd need a massive amount of chaff, launched at high speed, for it to work at all. Additionally, the chaff (and the pattern it makes when launched) would have to somehow look like missile's target. Which is a massive, slow warship. Have fun with trying to make that work.
That's for passive ECM. Active ECM is more like those "R2-D2" missile intercept systems that USN carriers have, in terms of cost and scale; they're expensive, took a while to develop, and even today are too expensive to mount on non-capital ships. Israel's Iron Dome took years to develop, costs quite a lot per unit, and is still only a few in number despite it being a very high priority for Israel; they're building several more, but I hope you get the idea.
1) The UEF's capability. Sol is supposed to have an industrial and infrastructure capacity that rivals the entire GTVA (or at least its Terran side). Granted, that was BEFORE the GTVA invasion, but still. Where are the UEF's production capabilities? It doesn't seem to actually have any--Uriel fighters are apparently an endangered species. New warships are unheard of. War materiel is vastly more valuable than people. Why is this the case?
This big, secret project Bei is working on would explain it, true. Though how such a project would stay a secret really stretches suspension of disbelief, as most the UEF's industrial capacity is being directed to a single, massive project, even as a desperate war of self-defense against a vastly more powerful enemy gradually gains more and more ground. The fact that the project's very existence is almost treated like a rumor by Admiral Calder himself--when speaking to the other two top admirals of the UEF--makes no sense. You'd expect knowledge of the existence of some secret, big UEF project to at least be widely known, especially for morale purposes.
So, this is really the biggest problem: the UEF is just too weak, and far too incapable of replacing losses (aside from poorly trained pilots or cheap fighters), along with showing very little capability to develop new technologies/designs. It can adapt its tactics to a decent degree, but it has yet to adapt technologically, logistically, or militarily.
2) Lore and gameplay contradiction. The UEF's big advantage is supposed to be major fighter superiority (which is itself partially due to the UEF's military being strictly designed around the expectation that all conflict would only be in Sol). In game, this isn't the case, as only the best UEF fighters are superior to GTVA ones, and only the Uriel is a major threat to capships (unless you have space dominance, which means you're going to need enough fighters to match the GTVA in such a battle), and considering how the UEF can't replace its losses, and the extreme adaptability of the GTVA, this should no longer be the case at all.
Actually, wait. The Vasudans are likely giving military support now, and they already started giving major logistical support earlier, too. So yeah, I give it a few months at best before the GTVA launches a final assault and crushes the remainder of the UEF. If they decided not to care about taking a bit heavier losses, they could launch that assault in under a month.
If more than one GTVA destroyer battle-group attacks a significant asset/thing, then you will not counter it with a second Solaris battle-group. You will give it up. This is because it's a clear and classic Xanatos Gambit--they win whichever way you act--but choosing to engage would result in disaster, rather than ceding that asset/territory. Instead of losing a refinery or city, you'd lose a Solaris, or the most critical/core of your infrastructure/assets. Either one would mean that ultimate defeat could be expected as early as a week or two afterward.
This strategy is all about buying time. You're giving up bits and pieces rapidly in order to conserve your core and most vital of assets, as well as your ships, which are the only thing standing between the GTVA and total victory. Samuel Bei says he and his project just needs more time. Well, here's his time. It's as much as he can get, short of a ceasefire to sue for peace.
Honestly, you've got an intertwining of story, setting, and gameplay here. You can have weaknesses reflected in other ways than gameplay. The M1-Abrams tank is a good example; it's got speed, firepower, heavy armor, ruggedness, range, etc. But it's more expensive for it, not just in terms of building one, but in maintenance costs--a jet engine requires a lot of maintenance after rugged operations in a desert. Using that incredible speed means using a lot of fuel, so you need a good supply chain. And, you know, fuel costs money.
I think the notes I made in my prior post are starting to echo, and would have even if I'd not have said anything at all - it's just common sense....
I think the notes I made in my prior post are starting to echo, and would have even if I'd not have said anything at all - it's just common sense. Why not just use a modular weapon system already lying around which can either be modified in the field or easily re-tooled back in the factories at home? Here's the missile boat Rhea - it might need a bit of re-working to the base mesh, as this was more of a concept model rather than something to be put back in FS. All one has to do is mirror the main weapons pod...
(https://public.sn2.livefilestore.com/y1pNpqq2BirOC07yGzMt_ubwLBaIbhOlFqvulqH_XL1ola9la0MYB-uTRk7cj4IpIwe1TI8U9isQa1S4k5pwCOJsg/RheaMissles.png?psid=1)
I'll post the model if anyone is interested or asks for it - you'll need to replace everything lost from the original model, however.
With regards to ship-based ECM: aside from the rapid-launched countermeasures (appearing like flares), you're going to need some kind of continually reusable system. The flares seem to be good for high intensity, "emergency" use (i.e., a big salvo of torpedoes or anti-subsystem missiles incoming), but they're not something that will effectively work over a prolonged engagement/usage. So you'd need some kind of supplament. I'm thinking an ECM package that jams guidance actively or passively, something along the lines of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ALQ-99, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ALQ-135 (especially this one)
That said, I think ECM is currently too effective against beam cannons. This gets especially jarring when, at a beam weapon's maximum range, they can be manually aimed by sight, without the use of radar/LADAR/LIDAR/whatever. Just a simple camera and "point and shoot" system operated by a gunnery officer. The cost of this, I think, should be that it does less damage (the beam doesn't continually target the same spot on the target's hull, resulting in the effect being more spread out, but not in an effective way against subsystems like slashing beams), especially to subsystems.
-snip-
How does the other side see this? Warp flash, Ballistas arrive, it takes around 2 seconds for a ship to arrive from subspace. It takes about 3 seconds for a Kent to do a full 360 turn.
-snip-
Thanks for the effort put into the post. I want to make sure you're aware that we've put comparable amount of time (and words) into our discussion of the setting, and that our team spends a lot of time banging on everything from a lot of angles in order to make sure it hangs together. Where there are holes still unexplored, we see an opportunity to tell new stories and come up with interesting new gameplay.
1) The UEF's capability. Sol is supposed to have an industrial and infrastructure capacity that rivals the entire GTVA (or at least its Terran side). Granted, that was BEFORE the GTVA invasion, but still. Where are the UEF's production capabilities? It doesn't seem to actually have any--Uriel fighters are apparently an endangered species. New warships are unheard of. War materiel is vastly more valuable than people. Why is this the case?
What evidence do you have for this? After eighteen months of warfare, the UEF still retains sufficient military power to deter a coup de main by the ten GTVA destroyer battle groups committed to the war directly or in reserve. Vast amounts of ordnance have been expended, yet significant warload remains in stock.Huh? Perhaps I just totally missed a few cues here and there, but that wasn't the impression I got from playing WiH (or reading its supplamentary material, unless I missed something or misunderstood it). Calder called out the Elders and other admirals for continually diverting massive resources to that "secret project". Until Steele gained full command, the other GTVA admiral basically played a game of skirmishing, with UEF fighters playing a major role in repelling attacks; that admiral specifically avoided total war or going against "the book"--I take this to mean that he didn't ever target civilians or commit to large battles. From what I understand, losses on both sides were relatively light except in fighters, where the shortage of skilled and well-trained pilots in the UEF (and depleted number of Uriels) is met by consistently good (or even better) skilled/trained pilots, and no shortage of more valuable fighters.
You suggest new warships are unheard of, yet a frigate has a build time of probably 1-2 years, and there have clearly been some introduced to match past losses. If anything the problem here is that the UEF is producing too much, not too little.
You suggest that war materiel is vastly more valuable than people, yet if anything the opposite is true. One key factor in the UEF's slow slide backwards is their loss of trained personnel. The GTVA (like the Pacific Theater US air corps in WW2) rotates its experienced pilots to the rear to train new pilots. The UEF is forced to run its aces until they break or die.Very true, but it seems this is mainly limited to the case of the pilots. No mention of this issue is made about any other area. Add to that that thousands of civilians are thrown away to deny the enemy assets, and civilians are used as distractions (or ignored as unimportant) for military objectives, and you've got a heck of a trend. As for the UEF's policies with its aces--if the situation is that bad throughout the entire war, then it's true that the UEF can't effectively replace its losses, nor can it truly strengthen its fleet more than its losses weaken it.
This big, secret project Bei is working on would explain it, true. Though how such a project would stay a secret really stretches suspension of disbelief, as most the UEF's industrial capacity is being directed to a single, massive project, even as a desperate war of self-defense against a vastly more powerful enemy gradually gains more and more ground. The fact that the project's very existence is almost treated like a rumor by Admiral Calder himself--when speaking to the other two top admirals of the UEF--makes no sense. You'd expect knowledge of the existence of some secret, big UEF project to at least be widely known, especially for morale purposes.
So, this is really the biggest problem: the UEF is just too weak, and far too incapable of replacing losses (aside from poorly trained pilots or cheap fighters), along with showing very little capability to develop new technologies/designs. It can adapt its tactics to a decent degree, but it has yet to adapt technologically, logistically, or militarily.
You're making assumptions here which do not appear to be in evidence from the campaign, and treating what should be interesting clues as dead ends.This was just the impression that I got--and for the most part still have--from playing the game and reading the supplamentary material. The exception is the capability to develop new technologies--the Karuna mission I very recently discovered proved that assertion completely wrong, and the tech displayed in that mission was pretty astounding (especially the damage control; that feature is incredible, even if very limited in usage during intense battles). However, this also made the events of Delenda Est quite confusing--why didn't the Katana use its jamming tech on the Imperieuse? It had no reason to use active armor, and damage control was not tactically advisable yet (they were still right in the middle of battle against a beam cannon-using Carthage), and the chances that both the Katana and its partner ship (or the Indus and Yangtze, if they had it) couldn't use their ECM for the entire time of their engagement with the Imperieuse?
2) Lore and gameplay contradiction. The UEF's big advantage is supposed to be major fighter superiority (which is itself partially due to the UEF's military being strictly designed around the expectation that all conflict would only be in Sol). In game, this isn't the case, as only the best UEF fighters are superior to GTVA ones, and only the Uriel is a major threat to capships (unless you have space dominance, which means you're going to need enough fighters to match the GTVA in such a battle), and considering how the UEF can't replace its losses, and the extreme adaptability of the GTVA, this should no longer be the case at all.
Almost every UEF fighter is demonstrably superior to its tactical analogue in one way or another. Match the Uhlan against the Perseus, for example - they have similar performance but the Uhlan is more heavily armed and slightly more flexible. And it seems, uh, a little odd to say that only the Uriel is a major threat to capships with the Durga and Vajradhara there, each capable of single-handedly mauling a corvette.I talked about this above, but mainly: hardly ever saw bombers in action, and the one time I distinctly remember them, they jumped Serker, didn't do that much damage before Serker jumped out, and half the bomber force died.
Actually, wait. The Vasudans are likely giving military support now, and they already started giving major logistical support earlier, too. So yeah, I give it a few months at best before the GTVA launches a final assault and crushes the remainder of the UEF. If they decided not to care about taking a bit heavier losses, they could launch that assault in under a month.
If more than one GTVA destroyer battle-group attacks a significant asset/thing, then you will not counter it with a second Solaris battle-group. You will give it up. This is because it's a clear and classic Xanatos Gambit--they win whichever way you act--but choosing to engage would result in disaster, rather than ceding that asset/territory. Instead of losing a refinery or city, you'd lose a Solaris, or the most critical/core of your infrastructure/assets. Either one would mean that ultimate defeat could be expected as early as a week or two afterward.
This strategy is all about buying time. You're giving up bits and pieces rapidly in order to conserve your core and most vital of assets, as well as your ships, which are the only thing standing between the GTVA and total victory. Samuel Bei says he and his project just needs more time. Well, here's his time. It's as much as he can get, short of a ceasefire to sue for peace.
Honestly, you've got an intertwining of story, setting, and gameplay here. You can have weaknesses reflected in other ways than gameplay. The M1-Abrams tank is a good example; it's got speed, firepower, heavy armor, ruggedness, range, etc. But it's more expensive for it, not just in terms of building one, but in maintenance costs--a jet engine requires a lot of maintenance after rugged operations in a desert. Using that incredible speed means using a lot of fuel, so you need a good supply chain. And, you know, fuel costs money.
You don't say! If we'd thought of this, we could've written a bunch of fluff about how UEF fighters are shorter-endurance, more expensive, and harder to maintain!I actually forgot about that one/overlooked it when I wrote that, and I'm sorry--you're right, you do do this stuff. Though this seems to make the UEF's situation even worse...
I don't mean to sound snippy here, but...the material's there. At points like this you seem to be veering into an odd kind of backseat modding where you recommend wholeheartedly that we do things we've been doing since day 1. It's not a bad thing to reach the same conclusions we have - it's flattering! - but we'll obviously get a bit prickly if you try to sell them to us as insights we've missed.Even at the time when I wrote that, I meant it in terms of (even if I failed in that regard, sorry) emphasizing and reiterating that idea as an answer to a question you had asked me. I suppose I started with answering your question posed to me, and then got somewhat carried away when explaining my answer in depth.
And unfortunately the odds of an EMP missile of any kind showing up in a campaign that's not voice acted are pretty low, since they scramble HUD messages.Ah...yeah, that would be a problem. Though I do have problem reading the text in general; tiny, tightly-packed light-yellow font with no border and even some transparency...it can really be a pain sometimes. Though the HUD in general has similar, bizarre problems (very limited control over the contrast or opacity, and no outlines to anything). Still...one can dream, right?
Uhlans can carry Slammers (and surely would in response to such a threat), and the Kent is pretty widely deployed in Second and Third fleets. If the Ballista doctrine requires local space superiority, that removes a bit of its notional advantage.
Indeed. The entire Ballista platform relies several factors that are, quite frankly, either improbable, or once the tactic has been used once, nearly impossible.
For the Ballista to adequately perform its duties without dying in job lots it has to:
A) Arive undetected. This means the enemy cannot know of their involvement in the battle beforehand. This also means that their use is contingent entirely on surprise. If you don't surprise your targets, you die.
B) Acheive perfect jump position. Your wing has to warp out at minimum 2 kilometers from enemy craft to avoid being turned into swiss cheese. This limits your target selection hugely, because warping in 2 kilometers from a warship leaves you about 500 to 1000 meters away from the fighter craft escorting it, and even closer to its warship escorts.
C) Actually acheive tactical surprise, too, or your torpedo/treb salvo will get Countermeasured into ineffectiveness. Maybe even then.
A single misjump (ala the Vatican) or unexpected enemy warp-in will shred entire flights of Ballistas.
I also continue to stress that no matter how cheap the actual platform is, developing new technologies is expensive.
Plus, having missile space means less than nothing when you only fire one salvo. If you stay to fire more than one, you die.
It still respects the lock-on time.It does? Every time when I tested it, it didn't gave a darn about it. Granted, this was with torps and some time ago (remember the "cyclops swarm" bug? It was around that time), but I've done plenty of testing regarding that. I'm also pretty certain that AI frequently launched long-lock LR missiles at me immediately after coming into range. This might have been fixed since I tested it though.
the Feds should give [Uhlans] better armor and shields and drives and Apocalypse#Narayana launchers and the ability to transform into Buster Machines and :eek: