[Polpolion]

The Cyclops is 15 cargo size points.

You can fit more Cyclopes in Ursae than Medusae.

Okay so you can fit 3 more bombs in the Ursa, yet that didn't invalidate my premise. I would still take the Medusa over the Ursa for almost  any bombing mission.

[Desert Tyrant]

The Cyclops is 15 cargo size points.

You can fit more Cyclopes in Ursae than Medusae.

Okay so you can fit 3 more bombs in the Ursa, yet that didn't invalidate my premise. I would still take the Medusa over the Ursa for almost  any bombing mission.

Actually two cyclops.  The Reason why Ursa is more popular is the better shielding and the heavier armour.  It also has two primary banks and its turet is miles ahead of the Medusas.  (Granted, this is coming from somebody who usually uses the Boa for Slaying Ravana.)

[TrashMan]

Ursa all the way.. I allways use the big sucka.

First I kill off all the basalisks with my primaries...if there are other pests around I take em out too...I'm sorta paving the way for hte othr bombers..then I let em loose. Bye, Bye Ravana.

they Keyser turret is worth GOLD.

[Mad Bomber]

The Medusa is fine as far as I'm concerned, but it can't mount the Helios, can it?

Besides, I've gotten fairly good with off-center gunmounts. I love blasting Thoths with the Ursa's side guns.

So I guess it depends, really. In situations where I'd be attacking destroyers, I pick an Ursa. Otherwise a Medusa will more than suffice.

Of course, I'd pick a Sekhmet over them both.

[Grizzly]

 Nearly all the bombers are getting phrased out of the GTVA fleet - when beams are available, what's the point of a bomb?

The point of the bomb is that you can't fire anti-cap beams against bombs; If you first send bombers to weaken a... Say an Orion, and then send in; say a Vesudan corvette, you win.

See also: The part of the FS2 campaign where you fly in a bomber sqaud.

[Gamma_Draconis]

It is also more cost efficient to commit bombers than to commit a full destroyer and risk it be destroyed. All destroyers on FS2 and FS1 double as a carrier for fighters/bombers as well. Losing any of them is a significant lost.

[jr2]

In WWII, we lost a ton of B-17s because "Command" thought they were "Flying Fortresses" and didn't send any fighter cover with them.  Ofc, they dropped like flies.  They could bite back, but you can't pit a bomber against a fighter and expect the bomber to win most of the time.  The fighters are small, fast, and nimble and hard to see / target.  The bombers are large, slow, and hard to maneuver, and easy to see / target.  D'uh.  Bomber loses.  Interceptor fighters should be the type to escort bombers.. they are built for intercepting bombs / fighters.  Either that, or space superiority fighters.  But I'd think interceptors would be better, because they can zip out, destroy the enemy fighter(s) and zip back.

[nvsblmnc]

The point of the bomb is that you can't fire anti-cap beams against bombs

Actually, you can.  It usually makes quick work of both the bomb and the (retreating) bomer.

[Koth]

Yes but actually that isn't supposed to happen. Anti Capital Beams can't target bombs or Bombers per defintion but somtimes they still do. Anyway it was quite funny to see the Orion shooting with his BGreen at me. Thankfully I was in God mode at that moment.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Hmm...if you're talking about beams, I don't think you can get shot down by friendly beam fire. There was one time I FREDded an Inferno mission and accidentally set the TSJ Icanus to fire its primary beam cannon, the USilv, at me. I didn't activate God mode and got hit...but I didn't suffer a scratch.

I always put the Ursa as my favourite choice of bomber, followed by, in order, the Sekhmet, Medusa, Bakha, Boanerges, Artemis D.H., Artemis, Zeus, Osiris, Amun and Myrmidon.

...I'd like to fly a Shivan Seraphim some day, just for the feel of it. It must be really nice flying them. I'd even like to fly the Vindyachal in INFR1, just because it has a beam cannon.

[Koth]

If you are hit with friendly fire the damage you get is drastically reduced but enough of it can still kill you. I remember playing 'The Great Hunt' and just as Command said: Avoid the beam and you won't get hit, guess what happened? Yes I was deep fried by a slasher from the GTCv Actium. Funny isn't it?   

[Androgeos Exeunt]

...and that was why one of your wingmen said, "Dammit Actium! Watch that friendly fire!"
That really must have been Command's most useless advice. To avoid the beam means to stay behind the two corvettes. To stay behind the two corvettes would mean their destruction. To stay in front of them, however, means certain death.
I bet the Actium's captain was a bit too over-enthusiastic firing his beams.
...but seriously, I'd like to fly a Seraphim sometime and experience "the terror of intercept fighters".

[Wanderer]

On default setting if the beam fire is not carefully coordinated in the mission file - that is ships are set 'beam-free' - then all the beams (including anti-cap ship beams) prioritize bombs over all other targets and also often kill the unsuspecting bombers 'hiding' behind the 'bomb screen' as well. This is used by some knowingly into their advantage - like tossing bombs towards, or even between, enemy cap ships drawing the heavy beam fire away from the friendly cap ships, sort of jamming the enemy anti-cap ship weapons.

[eliex]

 It's funny to see a twin Ravana beam fire for 10secs just for the sake of twin Cyclops to neutralize the beam before the Vasudan destroyer got wasted.

 Ironic that the destroyer got destroyed . . .

[BengalTiger]

In WWII, we lost a ton of B-17s because "Command" thought they were "Flying Fortresses" and didn't send any fighter cover with them.  Ofc, they dropped like flies.  They could bite back, but you can't pit a bomber against a fighter and expect the bomber to win most of the time.  The fighters are small, fast, and nimble and hard to see / target.  The bombers are large, slow, and hard to maneuver, and easy to see / target.  D'uh.  Bomber loses.  Interceptor fighters should be the type to escort bombers.. they are built for intercepting bombs / fighters.  Either that, or space superiority fighters.  But I'd think interceptors would be better, because they can zip out, destroy the enemy fighter(s) and zip back.

Well before the P-51, friendly interceptors just didn't have enough fuel to escort the B-17 during raids deep into Germany (and Command couldn't do much about that), and that's why it needed 13 .50 cal machine guns to have a chance against the Luftwaffe.

[Cyker]

I suck at bombing...
I prefer suppression to bombing.

An Artemis or, if I can get away with it, an Ares with Prometheus/Kayser and a Maxim, with a load of Trees or Stiletto.

Take out the engines and main beams, let your capship do the hard work while you still have the right weapons to switch back to defend your capship (Trees FTW!)

I was better at it in the Starwars games (But then a B-Wing can singlehandedly take on a Corvette or Neb-B Frigate so... )

[jr2]

In WWII, we lost a ton of B-17s because "Command" thought they were "Flying Fortresses" and didn't send any fighter cover with them.  Ofc, they dropped like flies.  They could bite back, but you can't pit a bomber against a fighter and expect the bomber to win most of the time.  The fighters are small, fast, and nimble and hard to see / target.  The bombers are large, slow, and hard to maneuver, and easy to see / target.  D'uh.  Bomber loses.  Interceptor fighters should be the type to escort bombers.. they are built for intercepting bombs / fighters.  Either that, or space superiority fighters.  But I'd think interceptors would be better, because they can zip out, destroy the enemy fighter(s) and zip back.

Well before the P-51, friendly interceptors just didn't have enough fuel to escort the B-17 during raids deep into Germany (and Command couldn't do much about that), and that's why it needed 13 .50 cal machine guns to have a chance against the Luftwaffe.

They couldn't just put a drop tank(s) on a Spit?