[Knight Templar]

Well, they also aren't very EA, at all.

[DeepSpace9er]

Id say that the Mk2 should be the Mk1, the Mk 1 be the Mk 2, and leave the Mk 3 as the Mk 3. Other option is to fry the Mk 2 option and make the Mk 3 the Mk 2. I never liked the Mk 2 design anyway.

[Mr. Vega]

Originally posted by Woomeister

Why?

Look at Claymore 1, the left wing. Notice the squiggly lines.

[Woomeister]

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Id say that the Mk2 should be the Mk1, the Mk 1 be the Mk 2, and leave the Mk 3 as the Mk 3. Other option is to fry the Mk 2 option and make the Mk 3 the Mk 2. I never liked the Mk 2 design anyway.

The Mk II would make a lousy recon craft since it's too large to be one.

[Woolie Wool]

Not if you can kick the enemy ships' asses before they can do any damage.

The Claymore 2 may be ugly (both the new one and the old one), but it's one hell of a fighter. It could pretty much own any GTVA fighter bar the Keres, never mind the puny Hercs, Ulysses, and Ursas deployed by the colonial powers in Blaise Russel's campaign.

[Knight Templar]

IMHO the only thing it suffers from is the wide spread of fire points... I could usually only hit something with half my shots.

[Woomeister]

Well none of the new ones should have that problem.

[T-Man]

The first ship looks good, but the other two are really odd shapes, and don't rally go with the texture.

I agree with Knight Templar, the texture does not look very EA'ish, but i reckon the EA ships could do with a little darkning. All the bright textures made them look to basic, especially when put against ships like the Icleus and warlock.

[Woomeister]

Originally posted by T-Man
I agree with Knight Templar, the texture does not look very EA'ish,

Well all the EA fighters use the exact same texture, only the bombers are different.