Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - FS2 Required => Blue Planet => Topic started by: SaltyWaffles on October 05, 2012, 05:08:36 pm
-
I bring this up because it seems to be a point of uncertainty (or at least curiosity) on the dev team with regards to bomber pilots suffering very high casualty rates for relatively little gain.
If one wishes to preserve the current dynamic regarding torpedoes/bombs, there are two ideas that intrigue me, one of which was furthered by the dev team (and related elements) itself--but I'm very curious about it from an in-story point of view.
So with regards to the 'cruise' missile possibility:
A) It would be like a faster, long-range version of current torpedoes (like, say, the Cyclops); the main drawback is that it would take up significantly more cargo space. It would still have the bomb flag, meaning it can be shot down like any other torpedo, and though it will be relatively fast (for example, 350 m/s perhaps), it would still take a significant length of time to reach its target from a range of five-six kilometers, making its effectiveness when fighter screens or point defenses are capable of interception questionable. The idea is that these would feel kind of like Ares Treb strikes--jump in five kilometers out, launch a salvo of Trebs, quickly jump out--but would not really be attempted or likely to succeed unless a ship's point defenses and/or fighter cover was significantly compromised. Since that is kind of already the case with traditional bomber/torpedo strikes, this method at least results in minimal casualties among the bomber squadrons rather than looking like a suicide brigade.
B) Bomber attacks could still be launched with the target's defenses still up if they were adequately distracted or engaged with other forces--like some space superiority fighters backed up by a heavy assault wing, or a hostile corvette pair. Launching from multiple directions at once can increase hit probability too, while giving the player greater challenge without being overly hard or complicated (you can see what you do wrong, and easily think about how to do better).
C) Might give heavy bombers relevance again if the refire rates for the cruise missiles were kept reasonably low. A heavier-duty version might be doable for the large secondary banks of heavy bombers, something that retains the same capabilities as the smaller cruise missiles but packs a much greater punch (and is thus usually reserved for when hit probability is high).
----
As for the drone bombers:
A) What exactly are the complications for implementing such a strategy? Would bombers become cheaper, or more expensive? Could they be made smaller while retaining the same bomb capacities?
B) How much effectiveness would they lose?
C) How susceptible are they to ECM and electronic warfare?
D) Could they morph into hatcheries? Could they perform a gas steal?
-
I seem to remember Battuta mentioning something about bomber-launched Eos torpedoes. Would makes sense, considering how old the Cyclops is (assuming it's a derivative of the ST:R Serkr). Considering the Eos' long range, it could serve as what you describe.
We'll find out what we need to know about the drones when WiH2 is released.
-
Actually, your ideas are quite familiar to BP team. It's been mentioned a few times on the forums. Expect to see something along these lines in WiH2.
-
Drones and higher-speed, lower-yield torpedoes are already implemented for R2. Steele will perform gosu micro with them.
-
You guys should include a cutscene of Steele drag-selecting drones then right clicking a frigate.
-
You guys should include a cutscene of Steele drag-selecting drones then right clicking a frigate.
Please do! :D
-
While I like the idea, I have one point that bothers me a little.
Why would you have more chance to hit the target, if you shoot bombs from multiple angles?
All ships worth bombing with those new torpedoes have weapons all around and that each turret fires independently.
If I fire from multiple angles that means that some bombs will be in the field of fire of another turret. I'd try to squeeze all my torpedoes into the same attack angle, preferably from the side where the enemy has the fewest point defense weapons.
While there is the chance that a shot that misses one bomb, will hit another "by mistake", that chance is still significantly smaller than the chance of additional turrets shooting down more bombs.
The only advantage I can see is, that the defending fighters would have a harder time, but the point defense turrets get it far easier.
-
If a shockwave affects other bombs/destroys them, you can loose a whole bunch of them by one lucky shot...
-
While I like the idea, I have one point that bothers me a little.
Why would you have more chance to hit the target, if you shoot bombs from multiple angles?
All ships worth bombing with those new torpedoes have weapons all around and that each turret fires independently.
If I fire from multiple angles that means that some bombs will be in the field of fire of another turret. I'd try to squeeze all my torpedoes into the same attack angle, preferably from the side where the enemy has the fewest point defense weapons.
While there is the chance that a shot that misses one bomb, will hit another "by mistake", that chance is still significantly smaller than the chance of additional turrets shooting down more bombs.
The only advantage I can see is, that the defending fighters would have a harder time, but the point defense turrets get it far easier.
Makes things much more difficult for escorting fighters. The scenario is as much a distraction for a fighter screen as it is one that assumes some point defenses are taken out. It also means that point defenses are all busy with warheads, leaving fighters and bombers freedom to get in close.
-
With fighters and bombers going in this does make sense. I thought we were talking about a situation like the Ranvir or the "fire and forget" style trebuchet attacks made by the Ares wings.
-
With fighters and bombers going in this does make sense. I thought we were talking about a situation like the Ranvir or the "fire and forget" style trebuchet attacks made by the Ares wings.
Nah, it'd be rather pointless if point defenses were still in good shape--at least by itself. If you do a pop-up treb-style strike with cruise torps, you'd need to do something alongside it to make the attempt worth doing (like an attack on the target's fighter screen with two wings of your own fighters, SSM strike, or several cruise torp strikes at once, etc).
-
Bomber casualties would be further reduced with dumbfire bombs. A single bomber could send six bombs in seconds doing this, overwhelming the target ships CIWS. A simple proximity system could be used to make them move away from each other to prevent losing all of them to a single shot.
If a guidance system is absolutely necessary, they can always be cold-launched. Unless I'm using the term wrong, it means the bombs acquire lock by themselves AFTER launch.
-
We're probably not doing dumbfire bombs, especially not with all the effort put into capship countermeasures.
-
Makes things much more difficult for escorting fighters. The scenario is as much a distraction for a fighter screen as it is one that assumes some point defenses are taken out. It also means that point defenses are all busy with warheads, leaving fighters and bombers freedom to get in close.
Assumes escorting fighters don't stick to defensive sectors (which you could do in FRED if you were clever, and the BP team is quite clever). This isn't Kido Butai at Midway, communications and detection are better than that, and people aren't going to risk the use of a multivector strike against them like that if they've got enough CAP.
It really only works if you've already deployed a strike package large enough to suck up all the defending fighters. And if you've done that you might as well deploy along the same vector for more of the fire to get through remaining PD since it's distracted.
-
We're probably not doing dumbfire bombs, especially not with all the effort put into capship countermeasures.
Oh. I was gonna suggest something as silly as Amazon drones rigged with Maxims as a distractionary tactic while a deep strike force jumps into the foray (guided by an AWACS-calculated precision jump). Unless that's a foolhardy investment (how much are Maxims, anyway?).
Cruise missiles... Phobos Tomahawk, perhaps? High-speed missile that can be intercepted. (Yeah, I got the idea from Casualties of War... well, you have the Aurora, why not?)
-
Black_Yoshi1230: Even if we assume the GTVA still has Amazons, I seriously doubt their reactors could even run a Maxim for more than a shot or two. This is an FS1-era (at least) training drone we're talking about.
-
Pardon me if I'm off what you initially thought but what about the implemention of long range fast pilot guided bombs (think descent 2 guided missile). Should the bombers be sufficiently far to avoid being splashed while guiding their ordannance they might have enough flexibility to vary their offensives depending on the attacked ships. Might even give them a chance at evading turret fire or fighter cover near the bombs.
-
Black_Yoshi1230: Even if we assume the GTVA still has Amazons, I seriously doubt their reactors could even run a Maxim for more than a shot or two. This is an FS1-era (at least) training drone we're talking about.
The Amazon has a power output of 2.0 (equal to a Perseus, I think). I've mounted Morning Stars on them before and they did quite fine. Besides, it couldn't be too difficult to bring up the design and modify it a little with a more powerful/updated reactor. Given their original purpose and the age of the tech used to build them, I'd be very surprised if they weren't quite cheap.
Makes things much more difficult for escorting fighters. The scenario is as much a distraction for a fighter screen as it is one that assumes some point defenses are taken out. It also means that point defenses are all busy with warheads, leaving fighters and bombers freedom to get in close.
Assumes escorting fighters don't stick to defensive sectors (which you could do in FRED if you were clever, and the BP team is quite clever). This isn't Kido Butai at Midway, communications and detection are better than that, and people aren't going to risk the use of a multivector strike against them like that if they've got enough CAP.
It really only works if you've already deployed a strike package large enough to suck up all the defending fighters. And if you've done that you might as well deploy along the same vector for more of the fire to get through remaining PD since it's distracted.
Well, that could actually be exactly what you're aiming for. Maybe you want to keep their CAP sitting right next to their targetted ships so that your own fighters/bombers/cruisers can move around freely. Or maybe you fire some Trebs along with the torpedoes, targetting either some of the PD turrets on the target (guaranteed hit, plus a decent amount of hull damage as well) or the fighter screen, further tying them up/distracting them/giving the torps better chances for success (might even kill a fighter or two).
Put it another way: say, in Darkest Hour, a wing of bombers pops up several clicks away from the battle and fires off a salvo of cruise missiles at the Vatican, which is currently engaged with a Deimos (and you're dealing with two other wings of bombers and an AWACS threat calling in SSM's at Rheza); some of its PD turrets might already be down or distracted by other threats. Fighter cover is spread thin and holds the defense of Rheza as a higher priority, so it's got no fighter cover. The Vatican would probably get hit by some of the cruise missiles, taking serious damage. No bombers are lost, fewer torpedoes were wasted (probably), and the bombers are in the field for far less time.
Come to think of it, though, Trebuchets already make for light, long-range cruise missiles against smaller ships. Sure, they don't do that much hull damage, but they do a decent amount for their size/capability. If saturation strikes are the new thing, maybe a larger Trebuchet with more focus towards heavy hull damage, while keeping a high rate of fire, good range, and good speed (but now able to be shot down)? I am curious...
-
The Amazon has a power output of 2.0 (equal to a Perseus, I think).
Minor nitpick: Power Output doesn't do anything. The Amazon has a Max Weapon Eng of 50, a third of the Perseus'. That means that its tabled weapon recharge rate is one third that of the Perseus as well.
-
The Amazon has a power output of 2.0 (equal to a Perseus, I think). I've mounted Morning Stars on them before and they did quite fine. Besides, it couldn't be too difficult to bring up the design and modify it a little with a more powerful/updated reactor. Given their original purpose and the age of the tech used to build them, I'd be very surprised if they weren't quite cheap.
How many times must it be said that tables don't mean that much? The Amazon was never, ever flown by the player, and it was never armed with anything but training lasers. The only thing that suggests it has as good (or 1/3 as good) a reactor as the Perseus (a ridiculous assertion, no matter what the tables say) is a line in the tables that Volition never needed to change.
-
maybe a larger Trebuchet with more focus towards heavy hull damage
No need to make it larger, but faster. Like, railgun muzzle velocities faster.
-
I always felt allowing bombers to simply dump their entire payload on one pass would have exponentially increased their effectiveness and survivability.
-
Yep, in addition to the aforementioned drone bomber/high speed long range payload suite we've already implemented, the Tevs are looking at a high-alpha launch system for heavy bombers so they can shoot and skedaddle.
-
Anyone else think it'd be funny to hear Steele tell bombers to 'skedaddle on out of there y'all'? :p
-
Anyone else think it'd be funny to hear Steele tell bombers to 'skedaddle on out of there y'all'? :p
"Tell your Admiral we'll have another mutual bomber squadron massacre one day...but not today. Not today. Delta Wing, engage subspace drive. Skedaddle on back to Jupiter."
-
The Amazon has a power output of 2.0 (equal to a Perseus, I think). I've mounted Morning Stars on them before and they did quite fine. Besides, it couldn't be too difficult to bring up the design and modify it a little with a more powerful/updated reactor. Given their original purpose and the age of the tech used to build them, I'd be very surprised if they weren't quite cheap.
How many times must it be said that tables don't mean that much? The Amazon was never, ever flown by the player, and it was never armed with anything but training lasers. The only thing that suggests it has as good (or 1/3 as good) a reactor as the Perseus (a ridiculous assertion, no matter what the tables say) is a line in the tables that Volition never needed to change.
Apart from that designs can be worked over and improved and components of a ship/drone can be replaced.
If the reactor or battery or whatever it runs on isn't good enough, replace it with something better suited.
-
maybe a larger Trebuchet with more focus towards heavy hull damage, while keeping a high rate of fire, good range, and good speed
What's that? A missile that's good at everything would be good to have? You don't say!
-
Apart from that designs can be worked over and improved and components of a ship/drone can be replaced.
If the reactor or battery or whatever it runs on isn't good enough, replace it with something better suited.
Why bother? Amazons were never meant for combat, and converting them to be combat ships is probably way too much trouble than it's worth. Converting old mothballed strikecraft like the Medusa and Zeus to drones would probably be both easier and more effective. I'm pretty sure that's what the team's actually doing.
-
The point is, amazons were designed to be cheap to build, somewhat maneuverable, and able to carry an avionics package plus a little painting laser to simulate a weapon, as well as to blow up rather quickly under fire.
In order to make them combat effective, you'd have to add armor (increasing weight, necessitating bigger engines), shields (same), enough room to store a worthwhile weapons load (same, again), a more advanced avionics pack that can deal with real battlefield conditions without shorting out. In the end, you'd have a design that was an Amazon in name only; Considering the large amounts of old bomber spaceframes the GTVA has laying around in mothballs, converting them to drones by fitting a more advanced autopilot is probably cheaper.
That does not mean that there aren't going to be purpose-built drones at some point, but for now, the GTVA has decided to use up the reserves they do have instead.
-
maybe a larger Trebuchet with more focus towards heavy hull damage, while keeping a high rate of fire, good range, and good speed
What's that? A missile that's good at everything would be good to have? You don't say!
Great job on essentially reading only the first half of a sentence and completely missing the point. The missile I was describing would A) not work as an anti-fighter or anti-bomber weapon, B) be significantly larger, more in the realm of a Cyclops or Helios than a Trebuchet--meaning that only bombers could use it, and they couldn't carry that many of them at a time, C) you can shoot it down and target it with the B key, unlike the Trebuchet, and capship turrets will target and try to intercept it as well, D) not be as effective against shields (if at all), and E) not be as maneuverable; it would take major maneuvers for even corvettes to dodge one, but it could potentially be done--but don't expect it to reliably hit specific turrets/subsystems if the target isn't sitting still.
So, good at everything? Not even remotely close. Hell, you can't even use it against targets smaller than a cruiser, and it's very feasible to shoot down by fighters or warship point defenses, with a pretty big advanced warning about the type, direction, and range of such an attack.
-
Please cut out the abusive debate tactics, please. Your post was utterly and completely devoid of downsides for this hypothetical Trebuchet+5 aside from being able to be shot down. There was no mention of reduced maneuverability, reduced shield damage, increased weapon size, or reduced compatibility. Your post only called for a Trebuchet that did more hull damage, still fired quickly, had good range, and good speed, but could be shot down. Don't act like you explained the downsides. You didn't.
-
Regular Trebs should be interceptable.
-
Regular trebs are affected by countermeasures. Fighters have countermeasures, capships can have countermeasures too in BP canon. That can be considered as being interceptable.
-
No it can't. Avoidable and interceptable are two different things.
If it wouldn't completely screw up up balance in WiH1, I would be completely behind giving the bomb flag to every heavy missile (Treb, Grimler, Paveway, with Slammer and TAG-C very maybe).
-
The way countermeasures work right now, capships won't be able to use them for Treb defense. That's something we would like to change.
-
Why a bomb flag for a Slammer? Apart from it doing very little damage to anything that isn't a strikecraft, it "lives" far too shortly to be effectively targeted and shot down.
-
A slammer at max range has a flight time of a few seconds. Long enough for turrets on bombers to engage it.
-
Which makes me wonder something.
In BP the torpedoes "activate" only shortly before the impact, thus they do as good as no damage to their surroundings if they are shot down, rather than hitting, where in the original bombs always exploded full force.
Would it be possible to have something in between?
For example the Slammer, due to being shot down, can't properly deploy it's submunitions, but they still work as "classic" shrapnell and thus still cause some damage.
-
Bombs in FS2 also had next to 0 shield damage, which isn't the case of BP bombs and torpedoes. Believe me, you WANT those things to do next than 0 damage when you're intercepting them.
-
Which makes me wonder something.
In BP the torpedoes "activate" only shortly before the impact, thus they do as good as no damage to their surroundings if they are shot down, rather than hitting, where in the original bombs always exploded full force.
Would it be possible to have something in between?
For example the Slammer, due to being shot down, can't properly deploy it's submunitions, but they still work as "classic" shrapnell and thus still cause some damage.
Dinky shockwaves (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Weapons.tbl#.24Dinky_shockwave) might be able to simulate what you're thinking of. BP already use dinky shockwaves for some missiles/bombs (IIRC), but I think it's to achieve the arm-just-prior-to-detonation effect.
-
Bombs in FS2 also had next to 0 shield damage, which isn't the case of BP bombs and torpedoes. Believe me, you WANT those things to do next than 0 damage when you're intercepting them.
I played the very first release of AoA and all that followed... do I even need to say more?
-
I still routinely get killed by the Temeraire's torpedoes when assaulting the Vassago in Forced Entry :p
-
I still routinely get killed by the Temeraire's torpedoes when assaulting the Vassago in Forced Entry :p
Um... the Ravana chasing the Termeraire is the Abel in Forced Entry. The Vassago shows up in Preserving the Balance and suffers death by beams.
And I got killed by a Narayana's torpedoes (yeesh, they really hurt) when I tried to do my own close-quarter bombing run on a Typhon.
-
Gotcha. I'm bad with names, especially when I can't be arsed to doublecheck. Bite me.