Is anything survivable on Insane? The only thing I would think is a terran Mara with dual Kaysers and trebuchets. Or just set the invincibility flag...but nothing really in either campaign.
Perseus stays alive well on Insane. Agility and speed become more important than shields/armor.
Perseus stays alive well on Insane. Agility and speed become more important than shields/armor.
In that case, would the Loki do well, being the extreme fragile speedster it is?
And Jesus Christ, I hate the Herc II and Myrmidon. I forgot how difficult the campaign can be with them. On insane you cannot even maneuver - you're better off trying to kill whoever's attacking you while pumping primary power to shields. Crikey
The Loki's actually not that bad. Its combination of a small target profile and more shielding than the Perseus makes it a pretty decent light fighter.Good gunpoint placement, speed, maneuverability and an IMPRESSIVE reactor output actually make it a good space superiority fighter that can more-or-less double in other roles due to its extensive weapons compatibility. If I remember correctly, the Loki can handle dual Prom-S or Kayser/Subach configurations easily for prolonged engagements.
Shields: 400
Hitpoints: 250
Power Output: 3.0
Shields: 350
Hitpoints: 265
Power Output: 2.0
The Zeus has serious problems in terms of armor, speed, and payload, but it actually dogfights better than the Artemis, mostly because it turns at a decent rate and it can actually hit things with its primaries.:yes: The Zeus is the most versatile design of the two. Superior gunpoint placement indeed make it a better dogfighter, while split primary banks give it a flexibility in the battlefield that the Artemis sorely lacks, and it notes.
:yes: The Zeus is the most versatile design of the two. Superior gunpoint placement indeed make it a better dogfighter, while split primary banks give it a flexibility in the battlefield that the Artemis sorely lacks, and it notes.
That being said, the Zeus really starts showing its weaknesses as a bomber in higher difficulty levels. Also, it's worth noting that I have a strong bias against the Artemis, and I feel like I have to be very honest about that.
I always wanted to like the Artemis. The problem is, it has poor gun placement and maneuverability, the two most important dogfighting statistics.
You know, it seems like almost every strike bomber has a crippling flaw: The Artemis has crap gunpoints and maneuverability, the Athena can't carry real bombs, the Zeus can but it has much worse payload and weaker armor.
The Bakha and the Sekhmet are the only exceptions I can think of, being fairly good in an anti-capital and anti-fighter role.
In particular, the Sekhmet is both the strongest and most maneuverable strike bomber in the game. It could easily be used as a heavy space superiority fighter instead of a bomber.
The profile is huge, though. And it still forces you to choose a single primary, which makes carrying a Maxim a risky gamble.
It's not a perfect ship, but none of its flaws are as huge as the Artemis's inability to dogfight well or the Zeus's poor armor and payload.The Artemis supposedly superior missile capacity to the Zeus deserves to be taken with a grain of salt. When you consider the Artemis' unfortunate design, you realize that in those admittedly larger missile bays you have to accommodate both anti-fighter missiles and anti-turret ones. This leaves you, in a best case scenario, with room for 4 Cyclops.
IMO the most overrated fighter ever is the ares. as if the herc2 wasn't slow enough, the ares doesn't carry much more than its predecessor and is easy prey for all the maras, manticores and dragons when it's introduced. on another note, don't ask me about ETS since i've given up on understanding it because of how it changes with difficulty.