Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: S-99 on December 25, 2007, 02:49:34 pm
-
Who ever piloted the boanerges? I remember i only did once back when the game first came out. I remember i didn't like the off center firing points for the guns. Is it really supposed to be fs2's version of the ursa?
-
It doesn't have the primary capacity to "replace" the Ursa, but IIRC it is faster and has a larger missile capacity.
-
The funniest thing in the whole game besides the easter eggs, is this:
The new GTB Boanerges has been assigned to elite bomber squadrons in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Terran battle groups. The challenge of maintaining an aging fleet has motivated the GTVA to develop a new generation of ships able to withstand long-term abuse in the field. By maximizing shielding and payload (while offering enough maneuverability to make it a viable tactical unit), the Boanerges promises to remain in service for decades to come. One test pilot observed that the Boanerges handles better than any other bomber and has enough firepower to make it a formidable anti-capship weapon.
That test pilot was most likely shot soon after. :lol:
:wakka:
-
I miss the Athena bomber. It was a true fighter-bomber and we need a replacement for it.
-
The Zeus is a little bit heavier so it can hold actual bombs, but if you want a ship that can dogfight, has armor, and can carry heavy missiles you don't want an Athena, you want a Herc II or an Eryines.
-
Or a Myrmidon... :nervous:
-
the Athena was a very good tactical/subsystem bomber. After that it was the best ship i loved to dogfight with.
-
Who ever piloted the boanerges? I remember i only did once back when the game first came out. I remember i didn't like the off center firing points for the guns. Is it really supposed to be fs2's version of the ursa?
I did, and I actually prefer it to the Ursa for Slaying Ravana. With the Boanageres, I can empty my payload more quickly then with the Ursa, the Boa handles slighty better, and it actually can mount Kaysers, and it's marginally faster. The Ursa does have more primaries, and boasts much better armour, but i've always prefered the Boa for faster attacks. (Like in Slaying Ravana, where after I kill the initial Basillisks I beeline for the Nav system and proceed to pound it with the Cyclops torpedos usually between mine and the rest of my teamates is enough to kill the Ravana on Normal.)
As for the charge of the Boa replacing the Ursa, I doubt it. The Boanageres strikes me as a higher payload bomber that's also more easy to maintain than the Ursa, regardless of the tradeoffs. (Weaker armour and slower afterburners) The Ursa is most definately superior for more prolonged bombing missions due to it's heavier mounting of armour.
The funniest thing in the whole game besides the easter eggs, is this:
The new GTB Boanerges has been assigned to elite bomber squadrons in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Terran battle groups. The challenge of maintaining an aging fleet has motivated the GTVA to develop a new generation of ships able to withstand long-term abuse in the field. By maximizing shielding and payload (while offering enough maneuverability to make it a viable tactical unit), the Boanerges promises to remain in service for decades to come. One test pilot observed that the Boanerges handles better than any other bomber and has enough firepower to make it a formidable anti-capship weapon.
That test pilot was most likely shot soon after. :lol:
Ok, snail, we get it already. (Even without the ****ing annoying .gifs)
Or a Myrmidon... :nervous:
Nothing wrong with the Myrmidon, aside from the lack of Harpoons. It's actually very maneuverable despite its size, and it has a very good number of primarys (It does have good compatability with most secondary weapons aside from the aformented Harpoonage)
The Myrmidon's actually pretty underated, as far as i'm concered.
-
Seems like command is a little like the USAF currently and historically. Always trying to make fighters / bombers that can do everything, so therefore are excellent in nothing. XD
-
cheper ships are perefered to good ships. Seems to be a universal constant no matter which universe or reality you are located :P
-
Regardless, the Athena was my favorite ship. I was disappointed that it wasn't in service during FS2. Those were the best ships I've ever flown, handle smoothly, had a tough hull, excellent shielding, and could carry a sizable payload. They need to replace the Athena with an Athena Mk.2 or something. It's simply too good a ship to not follow up with.
-
Regardless, the Athena was my favorite ship. I was disappointed that it wasn't in service during FS2. Those were the best ships I've ever flown, handle smoothly, had a tough hull, excellent shielding, and could carry a sizable payload. They need to replace the Athena with an Athena Mk.2 or something. It's simply too good a ship to not follow up with.
QFT! :nod:
-
I ALWAYS use the Ursa, except for Bearbaiting. Chuck n' fly! :lol:
-
Uh thanks to whoever deleted that post. :nervous:
Anyway, IMO each bomber is better fitted to a different task. The Medusa is good for anti-cruiser strikes. The Ursa not so much because it doesn't need that much firepower for such a small target. IMO, of course.
-
Boanerges was my favourite heavy bomber. It has a slim forward/rear profile, its all secondary firepower, with minimum required primary firepower. You can, by switching secondary banks continue to fire off bombs so that while one secondary bank is reloading you're already firing away with the next bank. The Ravana in the first mission you get a chance to use this bomber really suffers big time.
The Boanerges is a specialist bomber and it needs to work in conjunction with a Hercules II or Perseus wing. The Artemis is a more fighter like bomber that feels more like you're flying a Hercules with larger secondary banks and the Medusa and Ursa are the real bruisers of the bunch being big, large, and powerful. Particularly the Ursa which is firepower heavy in all respects but utterly slow. The Boanerges represents a slightly more agile version of the Ursa. Depending on the mission you want to have both types available so that you can pick and choose the type of attack you want.
-
It's worth noting that the Boanerges has exactly the same maneuverability as, and is only 10 m/s faster than, the Ursa.
-
The one attraction of the Boanerges over the Sekhmet or Ursa is its secondary capacity. The difference with Helios bombs in particular is larger than it looks, as it carries not only more bombs but an even number in each bank, so it takes fewer shots and less time to unload all of them. Apart from that, there isn't much else to like about it over the Sekhmet or Ursa.
-
Ursa velocity: 45
" Bank capacity: 80,80,80
" rotation time: 5.5,6.0,6.0
" shields: 850
" hit points: 550
" afterburner velocity: 90
" afterburner fuel\burn\recharge: 300\80\25
" Pbanks\points:2\5
" Sbanks: 3
Boanerge's velocity: 55
" bank capacity: 40,100,100
" rotation time: 5.5,6.0,6.0
" shields: 850
" hit points: 325
" afterburner velocity: 85
" afterburner fuel/burn/rech: 300/50/25
" Pbanks/points: 1/2
" Sbanks: 3
Sekhmet's velocity: 60
" bank capacity: 80,80,80
" rotation time: 4,4,4
" sheilds: 850
" hit points: 500
" afterburner vel: 100
" afterburner fuel/burn/rech: 300/50/25
" Pbanks/points: 2/4?
" Sbanks: 3
-
Note that the base speed is almost irrelevant. The afterburner velocity is what matters. As long as you use the afterburners correctly, you can maintain a speed that is close to the afterburner max. It would have been nice if the game showed that in the ship selection screen in addition to the cruising speed.
Also, some things are not apparent from the table stats alone and are based on the models. The Sekhmet's gun placement is much better than that of the other two ships, while the Ursa is by far the largest and easiest to hit.
-
It's extraordinarily easy to kill an Ursa head-on, even on Hard, but it's a nightmare to take the Boarnerges head-on.
Not to mention that the Ursa is openly saying: "Hey, trebuchets, hit me!!" I don't even have to lock when I'm in close range. ;)
-
Sekhmet's velocity: 60
" bank capacity: 80,80,80
" rotation time: 4,4,4
" sheilds: 850
" hit points: 500
" afterburner vel: 100
" afterburner fuel/burn/rech: 300/50/25
" Pbanks/points: 2/4?
" Sbanks: 3
Actually the Sekhmet has only 1 PBank, with 4 guns in it. It nearly doubles the firing rate of your primary weapon.
-
Oh. Well I only skimmed the table and I never fly the sekhmet :p.
So sue me.
-
...are we going off-topic? :nervous:
In any case, I don't like the Boanerges because it has no turret. It may be faster, but I'm not those kind of crazy pilots who like to fly circles all around other ships.
-
Oh. Well I only skimmed the table and I never fly the sekhmet :p.
So sue me.
I will. Failure to fly the Sekhmet is punishable under the GTVA Equal Piloting Act, Mirfak Convention, section 28-4-9-D.
Fortunately for you, the punishment just involves giving cookies to other HLP members. :D
-
It's extraordinarily easy to kill an Ursa head-on, even on Hard, but it's a nightmare to take the Boarnerges head-on.
Not to mention that the Ursa is openly saying: "Hey, trebuchets, hit me!!" I don't even have to lock when I'm in close range. ;)
I never had trouble killing either.
-
Oh. Well I only skimmed the table and I never fly the sekhmet :p.
Unless you play mods or multiplayer you'll never get the chance. :p
-
Oh. Well I only skimmed the table and I never fly the sekhmet :p.
Unless you play mods or multiplayer you'll never get the chance. :p
An even better idea is to just boot up FRED2, throw in a large ship and change your ship to a Sekhmet.
-
It's worth noting that the Boanerges has exactly the same maneuverability as, and is only 10 m/s faster than, the Ursa.
It's also five metres slower than the Ursa on Afterburner. If nothing else, the Boa's advantages are a relatively slim profile, as Icefire noted, and better torpedo capacity. (As many as four generally, assuming you're using the two large banks for torpedos and the one small one for defense missles.) The Ursa's still a great bomber, but it's basically a flying brick, and as such it's easier to hit than the Boa.
-
And lets face it. the Boanerges is just plain ugly, and nobody can spell the name right.
-
Oh and the model's center is in the wrong place so it maneuvers like a mad dog chained to a lamp post.
-
And lets face it. the Boanerges is just plain ugly,
That's purely subjective, and nothing more.
and nobody can spell the name right.
I can spell the name right: Boanerges. I merely choose to say 'Boa' instead, because Boangeres takes too long to type out sometimes.
Oh. Well I only skimmed the table and I never fly the sekhmet :p.
So sue me.
At the risk of pissing some people off, the Sekmet is, in my estimation, an overated ship. It's ugly as hell, it's got a huge target profile, and it's afterburner is, compaed to the SHivan Nahema, quite slow. Faster than either the Ursa or Boa, but even compared to a Heavy fighter like the Ares. The Sekhmet's real advantages are it's primary banks. Even if they're sub-optimal for dog-fighting, the rate of fire is excellent. Mekhu HL-7s and Promethus-S work absolute wonders. (I also prefer the Prom-S to the Subach/Mekhu line of weapons... it simply hits harder, really.) ANd, of course, the torpedo capacity is pretty generous, all things considered.
I think the reason why the Sekhmet hasn't been deployed widespread in the GTVA is because primarily of cost. That, and maybe possibly Sekhmet's can't be produced easily. I don't know why otherwise it wouldn't of appeared. It's pretty good, but it is not a god ship, all things considered.
-
Alright, now THIS one we really need to sue. The Sekhmet owns the Ursa and Boa easy, just look at the stats. It may not be a god ship, but its certainly the best bomber you ever going to be flying. As for the boa, this is what i think of it: :headz:
-
Alright, now THIS one we really need to sue.
The Sekhmet owns the Ursa and Boa easy, just look at the stats.[/quote]
I look at how the thing performs both canonically and in-game. The Sekhmet does not have any of the mythical qualitys many people assign it to be. If stats were all that mattered, I could mod an Ursa that could go 125 metres per second, but would it actually count? No. I prefer to judge a ship based off of what's known of it in canon most of all.
It may not be a god ship, but its certainly the best bomber you ever going to be flying.
I would prefer it if you would not try to speak for me, thank you very much.
As for the boa, this is what i think of it: :headz:
Yes, yes, we get it. The Boangeres is all that is wrong, it sucks, it's the root of all evil, blah blah blah. :rolleyes: The Boa does, in fact, have advantages against the Ursa (By the same token it has some pretty bad dis-advantages.) Lastly, don't assume that I think the Boa is the pinnacle of bombers. All I stated is that I prefer it to the Ursa on a few occasions, nothing more.
-
I can spell the name right: Boangeres.
I'm afraid you managed to prove yourself wrong :p The topic title has it right: It's Boanerges.
-
I can spell the name right: Boangeres.
I'm afraid you managed to prove yourself wrong :p The topic title has it right: It's Boanerges.
Ah ****. :o :nervous: SOrry about that, i'll fix it right now.
-
I STILL prefer the Ursa over any other bomber. I'd also like to note that in INFR1, the Sabus looks a lot like a Boanerges (which is why I don't usually fly it).
-
The sekhmet i can see not really being a true bomber although it is a bomber. It has more in common with the myrmidon in many respects. The only thing that keeps the myrmidon from being like the sekhmet is the fact that carrying bombs in the myrmidon is not only possible, it's an easter egg so many don't know about it, and the fact that the myrmidon can only hold like 2 helios bombs. Not really a true bomber role for the myrmidon.
-
The sekhmet i can see not really being a true bomber although it is a bomber. It has more in common with the myrmidon in many respects. The only thing that keeps the myrmidon from being like the sekhmet is the fact that carrying bombs in the myrmidon is not only possible, it's an easter egg so many don't know about it, and the fact that the myrmidon can only hold like 2 helios bombs. Not really a true bomber role for the myrmidon.
I think the Myrmidon can only carry one Helios in its third bank as the other two are too small for even a single torpedo to fit.
In any case, the design of the Boanerges was supposed to help the GTVA cut maintenance costs. Is that why it looks so boxy and has no turret?
-
The no turret part makes sense. As for the boxy look...idk. At least if you had no turret you wouldn't need to maintain a turret. Having no turret doesn't really make a difference unless you were flying something as slow as the ursa or slower. The fact that the bombers with turrets get kayser turrets is actually effective in warding off enemies as it only takes a couple of hits from a kayser to do serious damage. But, with the boanerges, it's one of your ok fast bombers with a smaller profile than the ursa. It sucks it doesn't have a turret. However, you can call the it the Ursa VE concerning manufacturing cost and maintenance :lol:
-
Hmm...indeed. However, the Boanerges is only a bit faster than the Ursa, so a turret might've been of some help.
-
That would make it nicer. Hell, i wonder if costs would be kept down by putting a blob turret on the back? Just any kind of turret would help on a turretless bomber.
-
No blob turret. Even if that thing will only slow the bomber down by 1 km/s, it's nothing but an oversized water balloon launcher. They need a Subach or Kayser turret. Or maybe some next generation blob turrets.
-
At least a morning star. Of course having a blob turret would be really bad. But, it'd be better than nothing. Assuming that blob turrets are a lot cheaper than the advanced lasers and plasma that fighters use. And i believe the subach is going to be the next generation blob turret, they're cheap to produce, more than plentiful, and the smaller ships besides fighters are sporting them.
But, a blob turret would be better than nothing to have on the back of a bomber since bomber designs are phasing out turrets period. Instead of phasing them out completely i'd at least try to keep a turret as long as possible no matter how crappy it would become before phasing it out. I mean all of the bombers with turrets have kaysers, a step down from that prometheus, maxim, etc. whatever. Or hell, if you want a turret that's as ****ty as the blob turrets but actually shoots fast and shakes up a target in the least i'd want a morning star turret. A morning star turret would still keep the enemies off your back really good too.
-
Which is cheaper:
a) A bomber with a turret
b) A bomber without a turret, plus another (couple?) to replace it when it goes boom.
-
A bomber without a turret of course. But, when it comes down to making a bomber with a turret that's cheaper than making an old style bomber with a turret the possibilities are endless. For making cheaper turrets like i said a while ago, you could go with something like the subach or the morning star. Both are annoying as hell and good at keeping fighters away, the kayser turret on the other hand is annoying in the factor that one hit from it causes crazy damage and fighters will want to stay away. The standard turret on a bomber should be replaced with something annoying but cheap, subach could do the job, but the morning star may be a better venture.
-
So 3 bombers w/out rets = 1 with?
-
One bomber with a morningstar turret will have better survivability then 3 bombers without a turret. :D
-
True. the morningstar would actually be the perfect turret weapon for a bomber.
It prevents the enemy fighter from shooting at you with it's primaries, knocks him around buying the bomber time. And time is all it needs :drevil:
-
I was thinking the GTVA should develop a new fighter-bomber to replace the Athena. I can imagine a fighter built with a single primary and only one secondary missile bank. The missile bank would be capable of carrying 2 Helios torpedoes but can also carry Harpoons if the operation calls for a dogfight situation. With advancements in support ships, perhaps they can even tradeout your missile loadout. Imagine a sleek medium size fighter-bomber capable of performing lighting fast strikes with torpedoes while still being able to handle fighters.
This new fighter-bomber would be issued to elite SOC squadrons, and maybe even be incorporated into a fighter-bomber division.
-
Just expand the 2nd secondary bay on the Athena :P
-
True. the morningstar would actually be the perfect turret weapon for a bomber.
It prevents the enemy fighter from shooting at you with it's primaries, knocks him around buying the bomber time. And time is all it needs :drevil:
Hmm...that's a thought, and I think that getting hit my a Morningstar can delay aspect lock as well. However, I doubt the Morningstar is that cheap to produce, as compared to Subachs and Mekhus, both of which are "standard weaponry.
This gives me an idea...why not mount Mekhus on turrets? After all, Mekhus have a high fire rate and do decent damage.
I was thinking the GTVA should develop a new fighter-bomber to replace the Athena. I can imagine a fighter built with a single primary and only one secondary missile bank. The missile bank would be capable of carrying 2 Helios torpedoes but can also carry Harpoons if the operation calls for a dogfight situation. With advancements in support ships, perhaps they can even tradeout your missile loadout. Imagine a sleek medium size fighter-bomber capable of performing lighting fast strikes with torpedoes while still being able to handle fighters.
This new fighter-bomber would be issued to elite SOC squadrons, and maybe even be incorporated into a fighter-bomber division.
You're reminding me of the Jotun, only in a more mobile package. I was thinking that Inferno Release 1's GTB Danaus fits this description quite well.
-
Appearently the successor to the Athena was the Zues. By the time FS2 rolls around, the Artemis is the successor to the Zues (although it's primaries need serious revisions).
-
What's with that, the athena has really awesome firing points, and the artemis has ****.
-
You're reminding me of the Jotun, only in a more mobile package. I was thinking that Inferno Release 1's GTB Danaus fits this description quite well.
The Jotun was just one stupidly big warhead lobber. The Danaus looked fast but its afterburners were a big failure IMO.
-
I always tread Artemis as Athena sucessor.
IMO Sekhmet > Artemis.
I just love to fly that ship and it's the only Vasudan craft that I can stand flying it (Maybe sometimes Tauret, but I prefer terran Mara or Erinyes, or Ares).
-
What's with that, the athena has really awesome firing points, and the artemis has ****.
Well, obviously the GTVA design in the lightning bomber category is declining.
That's, or whoever in command was responsible for approving contracts for fighters/bombers was an idiot..which doesn't surprise anyone.
-
command fails again.
-
As always.
I always tread Artemis as Athena sucessor.
IMO Sekhmet > Artemis.
I just love to fly that ship and it's the only Vasudan craft that I can stand flying it (Maybe sometimes Tauret, but I prefer terran Mara or Erinyes, or Ares).
I don't mind flying a Sekhmet, but when it comes to bombers, I usually choose the Ursa.
For fighters, the order is a bit like this, from most favourite to least: Ares, Mara, Tauret, Seth, Pegasus, Erinyes, Ptah, Herc, Herc II, Perseus, Serapis, Horus.
-
From what I see, you don't like inteceptors much :no:
Perseus and "Suicide kings" RLZ :D
-
I think that bomber turrets should be changed to flak turrets.
-
That would be evil. I think many people don't realise how evil flak really is, probably due to not playing at the higher difficulties. On Hard and especially Insane, AAA beams are a major nuisance, but flak is death incarnate. So please don't ever put flak on a bomber, lest we might one day have to kill one of them :p
-
That would be evil. I think many people don't realise how evil flak really is, probably due to not playing at the higher difficulties. On Hard and especially Insane, AAA beams are a major nuisance, but flak is death incarnate. So please don't ever put flak on a bomber, lest we might one day have to kill one of them :p
I think flak's only dangerous in groups of...uhh, three, at least. Flak cannons CAN rip through shields, but if you were to put them in a way like how they put them on the Deimos corvette or Aeolus cruiser...urgh. :nervous:
-
Deimos: Eat meh flak.
Aeolus: Flak you!
boanerges w/ flak cannon: Not so ****ty now, eh, biotch!?
-
That would be evil. I think many people don't realise how evil flak really is, probably due to not playing at the higher difficulties. On Hard and especially Insane, AAA beams are a major nuisance, but flak is death incarnate.
Agreed. If you go up against a capship with flak turrets on something like Insane, you have SECONDS to live, even in a fast, maneuverable fighter.
Interestingly though, the Ursa seems to take damage from flak over time on all difficulties. It will eat away at your shields then chew through your hull. The Boanerges does not seem to have this problem, probably because it is smaller. Beams seem to be more of a problem on lower difficulties, maybe they do not increase in effectiveness so much as you push up the difficulty.
I personally agree that flak on a bomber would be a nightmare, but they seem awfully defenseless with just tiny laser turrets to defend themselves with.
Aeolus: Flak you!
LOL :lol:
-
I personally agree that flak on a bomber would be a nightmare, but they seem awfully defenseless with just tiny laser turrets to defend themselves with.
Bombers are not supposed to be able to defend themselves all that well. That's what fighters are there for. Bombers have one reason and one reason only in their existence: launch bombs at big ships.
-
and look good doing it. thats where the boanerges fails.
-
Hmm...if you put a flak cannon on a Boanerges, don't you need to sacrifice loadout capacity for flak ammo?
-
not to mention the cannon could only fire a few rounds anyway assuming you could fit one on the bomber, due to the (probably) big size of the shells.
-
So you make really small flak... we could call it the "popcorn gun"! :lol:
-
Hmm...if you put a flak cannon on a Boanerges, don't you need to sacrifice loadout capacity for flak ammo?
*shakes head
I'd imagine you could easily fit 100 rounds easily in any bomber, with only 1 or 2 bomb removed. The rounds are a lot smaller than you think.
The laser bolts in freespace are actually several meters large. Make a weapon that's bolt is 1m by 1m. Pretty tiny, right? Keep in mind that it's a meter. Flak rounds would be at most 20cm by 10cm at most.
-
Hmm...if you put a flak cannon on a Boanerges, don't you need to sacrifice loadout capacity for flak ammo?
*shakes head
I'd imagine you could easily fit 100 rounds easily in any bomber, with only 1 or 2 bomb removed. The rounds are a lot smaller than you think.
The laser bolts in freespace are actually several meters large. Make a weapon that's bolt is 1m by 1m. Pretty tiny, right? Keep in mind that it's a meter. Flak rounds would be at most 20cm by 10cm at most.
Hmm...you might have a point there...but don't flak cannons fire shells in groups of three? Or is that a side-effect of motion blur?
-
That must be an illusion, or possibly the random turret fire delay, because flak turrets should fire at a constant rate. That rate can be pretty fast though, with Standard Flak it is almost 7 rounds per second, which could eat through ammo pretty fast. It might be cool (but annoying) if your turret could run out of ammo, but you could refill it by rearming.
-
I always play on easy/very easy and flaks seem to do nothing! The Triple As are really annoying, especially when leading a wing against a capital ship
Alpha 1, 2000 m from rakshasa, < 100 m/s
Alpha 2-4, Beta, Epsilon, and Delta, 5000 m from rackshasa, > 75 m/s
Alpha 1, Critical
Rest, 100% :hopping:
"Why don't you go beam one of the other fighters hey?! Why do you keep on picking on me?"
"The other fighters are out of range."
"No their not! Their right over... where are they? 'f', 'f', 'f'. Howcome their all clicks away? Hey wingmates, do you know what afterburners are?" :mad:
-
Yeah, it's not until hard/insane that flak gets truely evil. Lower than that, and the reduced damage combined with boosted shield recharge makes it hard for it to get past your shields. Before I started playing it online, I never played on anything harder than normal, and it was quite a shock suddenly having to fear flak more than any other capship weapon... in other words, I died constantly until I got my tactics sorted out to cope with it :p
(I still die constantly, but now at least I tend to get my bombs off first ;))
-
Indeed, on normal the game becomes enjoyable (it's just too easy on lower settings - "What ?! That Sathanas' beam hit me and I lost 50% hull ?! Can't be !!!"), and on easier it's really challenging. However, I've noted an interesting thing - although the capship's defences are a nightmare on >normal, your warheads too more damage. I have played the Bearbeating dozens of times on Easy, and not once was I able to knock down more than two beams. I turned on Normal, and I got all four without a sweat.
And back to the Boa discussion - the tech database actually doesn't lie. The Boa actually handles better than Ursa. I have tested those two intensively on Normal on Slaying the Revana, and the Ursa felt more like brick. Any hard turns were an abstraction, which was especially visible while trying to maneuver just outside Ravana's hull. I just kept hitting it ^^ Also, Boa was harder to hit for Ravana's turrets, while Ursa was mercilessly slayed.
Boa looks ugly for many people (however I actually like it ;D), and it's anti-fighter capabilities are well poor. However, who is such a wacko to dogfight in a heavy bomber ?! The turret on Ursa or Medusa *never* ever killed a single fighter for me, and dogfighting felt like a sumo fighter trying to catch a cockroach :p It was futile, to say the least. From canon/logical point of view, the designers never even dreamed that somebody would be insane enough to dogfight in their designs. Check out the modern bombers - they are big, sluggish and defenceless - attacking such targets is a fighter pilot's dream. Despite what the game shows us, pilots are NOT supposed to be one-men armies :p
-
Unless the tables lie, the Boanerges is, in fact, not any more maneuverable than the Ursa. It does feel like it handles better though. This is probably an illusion, maybe the eye point on the boanerges is farther from its center, so you appear to move farther when you turn. I have observed a similar effect when changing the field of view, so I think this is likely.
-
I hate the Boa with a passion. That thing handles much worse than my beloved Ursa and has a fraction the survivability. Now the Ursa... 5 guns, 3 large secondary banks, excellent hull, excellent shielding, and a top-mounted Kayser.
If you don't know how to get a kill from an Ursa's turret, you're flying them all wrong. My favorite is flying an Ursa against an agile fighter (Ulysses). The trick is to keep your prey directly above you. Maneuver by using the POV pointed up and try to keep the fighter directly above you at all times. The AI is quite stupid... they fly slow and will continue circling with you. That circling means, even on Insane, that your Kayser tears through their shields and hull. When one ship is down, another ship or ten always wants to tango. Target the nearest above you and keep em in sight again... most of the time all of the ships try to circle you or come in for pointless "runs" (about 70% of the time they start orbiting you too) that barely damage your shields. Running at 20-30 m/s is highly effective as well... leave your afterburners for missile evasion.
-
That thing handles much worse than my beloved Ursa
Except it doesn't. They both have the same maneuverability.
-
That thing handles much worse than my beloved Ursa
Except it doesn't. They both have the same maneuverability.
Another thing is that the Boanerges has a 5m/s velocity advantage over the Ursa...I think.
That turret on top of the Ursa was meant to fend off, not destroy, bombers.
Speaking of which...it seems that pilots who fly the Boanerges (or any other bomber with no turret) may really be better off in the long run, because they'll learn how to lob bombs, fend off attacks and get away from the blast zone relying solely on their flight skills. I believe that they have a slightly higher survival rate than pilots who fly a bomber with a turret (like myself).
-
That thing handles much worse than my beloved Ursa
Except it doesn't. They both have the same maneuverability.
Another thing is that the Boanerges has a 5m/s velocity advantage over the Ursa...I think.
That turret on top of the Ursa was meant to fend off, not destroy, bombers.
Speaking of which...it seems that pilots who fly the Boanerges (or any other bomber with no turret) may really be better off in the long run, because they'll learn how to lob bombs, fend off attacks and get away from the blast zone relying solely on their flight skills. I believe that they have a slightly higher survival rate than pilots who fly a bomber with a turret (like myself).
The velocity difference is what makes the Boa maneuver worse... plus the off-center turning point. True, don't rely too much on the turret, but it's still highly effective to kill maneuverable AI fighters. Though they turn at the same rate, the Ursa's lower normal speed lets it make slightly tighter turns.
-
Maybe they should put turrets on the top of fighters then (maybe ontop of shivan fighters)? ;7 The one thing that would be really awesome is to make a flak secondary weapon. Inferno had something like this, except it was dumb fire only and shot loads of little missles that supplemented your lasers. The flak secondary wouldn't matter if it had aspect lock or not now that i think about (if you chase a fighter good enough you can spray them with flak awesome just dumbfiring it).
-
Pfft...when it comes down to Inferno, they don't need turrets because some of their bombers have beam cannons, like the Vindyachal.
In fact, Shivans don't really need any turrets. Look at the Seraphim...gunpoints all over the place. ;7
-
Boa looks ugly for many people (however I actually like it ;D), and it's anti-fighter capabilities are well poor. However, who is such a wacko to dogfight in a heavy bomber ?! The turret on Ursa or Medusa *never* ever killed a single fighter for me, and dogfighting felt like a sumo fighter trying to catch a cockroach :p It was futile, to say the least. From canon/logical point of view, the designers never even dreamed that somebody would be insane enough to dogfight in their designs. Check out the modern bombers - they are big, sluggish and defenceless - attacking such targets is a fighter pilot's dream. Despite what the game shows us, pilots are NOT supposed to be one-men armies :p
I am that wacko, in harder difficulties i even sweep entire wings before going against my target because the AI allied wings are USELESS! i just love how some bombers have a huge primary loadout that shreds the little fighters, it's lot of fun watch them go boom XD
And, as someone else said, AI is stupid enough to give you their 6 o' clock at all times if you know how to do it, then it's just a matter of good aim and nice load out to obliterate them ;)
-
Boa looks ugly for many people (however I actually like it ;D), and it's anti-fighter capabilities are well poor. However, who is such a wacko to dogfight in a heavy bomber ?! The turret on Ursa or Medusa *never* ever killed a single fighter for me, and dogfighting felt like a sumo fighter trying to catch a cockroach :p It was futile, to say the least. From canon/logical point of view, the designers never even dreamed that somebody would be insane enough to dogfight in their designs. Check out the modern bombers - they are big, sluggish and defenceless - attacking such targets is a fighter pilot's dream. Despite what the game shows us, pilots are NOT supposed to be one-men armies :p
I am that wacko, in harder difficulties i even sweep entire wings before going against my target because the AI allied wings are USELESS! i just love how some bombers have a huge primary loadout that shreds the little fighters, it's lot of fun watch them go boom XD
And, as someone else said, AI is stupid enough to give you their 6 o' clock at all times if you know how to do it, then it's just a matter of good aim and nice load out to obliterate them ;)
Oh, whee. We're of the same mind. Sometimes, I dogfight in a bomber myself. I've even managed to hit some fighters with Cyclops torpedoes.
-
Well, I killed many Manticores and Basilisk with the turret of the Ursa. I don't consider it useless.
-
Do turrets get more accurate on higher difficulties?
-
I don't think the level of difficulty affects the accuracy of turrets.
-
Oh, whee. We're of the same mind. Sometimes, I dogfight in a bomber myself. I've even managed to hit some fighters with Cyclops torpedoes.
HAHAHA, it's awesome how fast they spin when they get hit by those, it's so funny to watch them spin out of control and then BOOM! :wakka:
-
Usually fighters don't "BOOM" when I hit them with torpedoes...
-
Direct hits seem to go right through sheilds, a good reason why ramming bombs is not a good way to destroy them.
EDIT: Well, it turns out I was testing on fighters that had no shields. A Helios still has enough hitting power to get through most shields though.
-
Y'know, I'd love to go head to hea din bombers with you Ursa lovers :P I'll take a Sekhmet, and we'll see who does the more damage =)
It's just unfortunate you never get to fly them in game, because they are a truey multi-role bomber craft.
Oh, and +1 to the evilness of flak on Hard/Insane. Not only does it rip your ship to shreds (Perseus fighters get seriousl chewed by Aeolus cruisers, Stilettos or no Stilettos), but forget trying to get a secondary lock if you're under flak fire.
-
Play a multiplayer mission that includes both and use the new Damage-Caused SEXP from HEAD builds and you can actually see who did the most damage.
-
Nice feature. Too bad it needs to be SEXP'ed - that would be an interesting figure to see in the debriefing statistics.