[Firgeis]

I have been thinking about the design of bombers in space simulation games, like XvT, FS, Wing Commader and the like.
I has come to me that designers take the concept of bomber as the bulking, slow unmaneubrauvle (sp?) ships wich carries huge a payload to be able to rip the larger ships.
I found that being even with huge payloads, fighters ultimately are more effective (and fun) to deal with larger ships because their ability to dodge anti-fighter weapons. Even with the extra hard shields and armor, bombers get wiped out fast... so weres the fun, and logic? I know its more effective to bomb a cap ship with helios rather than with tempest, so to carry the helios, the ship must be large and bulky. So make large sized gunboats to do the task. So ill be the bombers like different things. So here is my proposed skecth por spacecraft types:

==Fighters==

- Good Primary Weapons, Poor secondary (not crappy, only small payload or low damage one)

- Good Maneubrability, Poor Speed

- Good Armor, Poor Shields (depends on model however)

- Small sized, sleek

Purpose: All around spacecraft due to maneubrabilty and small size, able to wipe easily other spacecraft and can stand a chance against smaller capships

==Bomber==

- Poor Primary Weapons, Good Secondaries (besides having the specialized antcapship weaponry)

- Poor Maneubrability, Good Speed (Making them poor dogfighters but making them able to dodge anti-fighter weaponry)

- Good Shields, Poor Armor (mmm i have thinked about it, i assumed better shields because of the larger powerplant for the speed)

- Small sized, but bulky

Purpose: With speed and resilence, it can attack large ships (Frigates, Cruisers, Corvettes) and survive, however it could take long for them to take down the larger capships. Ineffective at dogfight due to poor maneubrability and bulky design

==Inteceptor==

- Poor Primary and Secondary weapons (mostly anti-bomber weapons or recon systems)

- Good Maneubrabilty and Speed

- Poor Shields and Armor

-Very small, very sleek, possibly make them have special features to make them less detectable

Purpose: Made to deal with bombers and to pick off on light defended targets and important capship systems.

==Gunboat==

-Poor Primary and Great Secondary (very huge anticapships payload, maybe some powerfull primary but anticapship only)

- Poor Maneubrability and Speed

- Good Shields and Armor

- Rather large and bulky

Purpose: Geared to take down very large capships. Ineffective at anything else. Maybe usable to take down small capship fast but still ineffective

Pd: Opinons Welcomed

[Hippo]

I dissagree with the fighters and bombers...

the fighter should have a high speed, but slower than the interceptors

the bombers should be faster than gunboats, but slower than the fighters unless its like the naheimia (sp?) and can go really fast

bombers should have a strong hull and shield sysem

if the bombers all go faster than the fighters, than whats the point of fighters, just make them all interceptors, or you'll be chasing this one bomber as it gets closer to your capship, and then taken out by a bomber fastert han you and behind you, it makes the game more annoying

[karajorma]

Besides bombers aren`t as useless as you`re making them out to be. In FS2 if you are flying a fighter you can`t take out anything above a cruiser.
  Try editing Bearbaiting to fly a fighter and then tell me that a fighter can deal out more damage than a bomber.

Oh and the gun boats you suggest might even get wiped out faster than bombers cause they would probably be large enough for the target to use anti-capship weapons on them.

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by karajorma
Oh and the gun boats you suggest might even get wiped out faster than bombers cause they would probably be large enough for the target to use anti-capship weapons on them.

gunboats, depending on their size and strenght, will be less maneuverable than bombers, would get an asswhooping when a cyclops from an enemy bomber nails it head on, and would be too slow to do much good against capital ships as capital ships can just pull out their bgreens on them.  In short, gunboats are not good against larger targets, but are better off fitted with flak and aaaf to deal with fighters;7.

Bombers on the other hand are not all slow, bulky, and flakbait.  A wing or 2 of Ursas (or Sekhmets) can take on any destroyer and expect to win.  A full squadron of any shivan bomber can take out any fs2 GTVA vessel asside from the Colossus without significant loss, many times in just one pass.  In fact, a single good bomber pilot can take out a fleet of ships if they hang around long enough (and if he doesnt run out of support ships:p).  As for enemy fighters eating bombers up, that is why bombers are covered by fighters, which are very good at dealing with other fighters (ie Perseus) .

In short, your assesment of bombers as useless hulks is in my opinion wrong; no hard feelings

[karajorma]

For once I completely agree with LtNarol on tatics

Gunboats should be like a small aeolus. Designed for killing fighters and bombers. The anti-capship weaponary should be extremely limited (although it should have something capable of hurting a cruiser at least)

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by karajorma
For once I completely agree with LtNarol on tatics

heh, great minds think alike

Originally posted by karajorma
Gunboats should be like a small aeolus. Designed for killing fighters and bombers. The anti-capship weaponary should be extremely limited (although it should have something capable of hurting a cruiser at least)

this is easily accomplished with fusion mortars...1 doesnt do a whole lot but 4 turrets mounted 2 a side can be devastating, especially to cruisers.  Even more devastating if these were loaded with cyclops seeing as they have a decent chance of hitting cruisers.

[karajorma]

I wouldn't go quite that far. Armed with whatever the default weapon for the fenris is would be enough for me. The ship shouldn`t  look like it's meant to take on capships after all.

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by karajorma
I wouldn't go quite that far. Armed with whatever the default weapon for the fenris is would be enough for me. The ship shouldn`t  look like it's meant to take on capships after all.

but Fenris is pretty much mincemeat for fighters  Levies and Aeolus atleast have a good chance

[karajorma]

I didn`t make myself clear. I meant that a gunship should be armed with fusion mortars (the default for the fenris).

More than that gives it a little too much firepower against capships (unless you make the cyclops have a long reload time).

The anti-fighter weapons should definately be based on those of the aeolus as that little ship is pure death to fighters.

[LtNarol]

well, larger vessels, even an orion, can handle only 2 cyclops from one side, and at the rate that a gunship moves, it wont be able to get off a second salvo  still, your point is very correct

[Firgeis]

Originally posted by LtNarol
Bombers on the other hand are not all slow, bulky, and flakbait.  A wing or 2 of Ursas (or Sekhmets) can take on any destroyer and expect to win.

Well in FS2, i think a wing of lets say Perseus with Akethon SDG and Stilletos will also do the job, maybe they will not blow it into pieces, but reduce it to less than a giant space hull with no weapons or systems and survive to engage another ship and stand a chance against other fighters

In fact, a single good bomber pilot can take out a fleet of ships if they hang around long enough (and if he doesnt run out of support ships:p).

I think that in FS2 a lone bomber would have problems even taking down an Aeolus class Cruiser (excepting of course the Orion class Destroyer, wich can be destroyed even by the puniest shieldless(does this word exist?) spacecraft)

[experiencedn00b]

i think that a bomber's chance of surviving INCREASES with the size of the vessel it is attacking.  like firgeis implied, you will get your @ss handed to you trying to take on an Aeolus, or maybe even a levi, by yourself.  you will stand a better chance against a corvette, unless its a sobek, which has the same concentrated fire (if not more) as an aeolus.  what makes these ships so dangerous is their ability to track any area with several turrets (i.e. very good coverage).  however, with destroyers like the Ravana all you have to do is take out one or two turrets and youve made a little gap in the ship's defenses, from which you can blast away at it.  unless, of course, its flak guns can fire through itself, which i have seen several times on the Typhon.  ive even tried destroying a Sath by myself, and i would have, had i been willing to sit there for an hour waiting for my cyclopses to reload and hoping the next support ship wouldnt get blasted.  for any destroyer to have as good of coverage as an Aeolus or Sobek it would have to have dozens more turrets.  thats whats so fun about FS2, being able to blow up things thousands of times your size in a puny little bomber!

[karajorma]

Yeah but as soon as source code boys figure out how to get rid of the turret limits we'll start seeing big ships that are also pure death to fighters

[Dr.Zer0]

Fighters - Small Targets
Bombers - Big Targets

[LtNarol]

I bring your attention to something called the "Trebuchet", take a ursa with 1 bank trebs, 2 bank bombs/torpedoes, and you have yourself a dead fleet so long as you dont run out of support ships.  You can treb the turrets on the Aeolus from a range of 5 klicks, well out of its reach, and then close to 2 klicks before firing off your cyclops (or helios).  boom, scratch one cruiser.  case closed.

[Blue Lion]

Hell a Maxim makes it an even shorter job. And you don't know how easy it is to sit in Vasudan Assault and just Treb the hell outta that destroyer. Easiest medal there is