[StratComm]

For that matter, any mission that asks you to singlehandedly destroy a hostile superdestroyer with only your primaries isn't exactly stellar.  Of course, I think the idea behind ST was worth persuing (the Hades remains one of my favorite canon Terran ship designs aesthetically), it's just that the end result was quite lackluster.

[karajorma]

The idea of the GTI revolution was brilliant and only added more depth to the storyline. Unfortunately although some of the missions were okay others were executed with outstanding incompetence.

The final mission is the icing on the cake though. If you play as a bomber it's a little lackluster and a definate poor ending to the campaign but if you play as a fighter it's abysmal.

@TopAce. It's not just that all the FA missions that I've played are better, I doubt I'd even assign anyone something that idiotic in the first place.
 As Stratcomm says, taking down a superdestroyer with primaries? Didn't anyone from playtest that mission?

[TopAce]

The mission was probably a lot easier with the 'big damage' flag non-existant.

[Annorax]

Originally posted by StratComm
For that matter, any mission that asks you to singlehandedly destroy a hostile superdestroyer with only your primaries isn't exactly stellar.  Of course, I think the idea behind ST was worth persuing (the Hades remains one of my favorite canon Terran ship designs aesthetically), it's just that the end result was quite lackluster.

If you're any good at escort, you're using a dozen Ursas, not just your primaries.

The mission still sucks ass.

[Skippy]

* goes off to try ST *

[DarthWang]

Originally posted by StratComm
For that matter, any mission that asks you to singlehandedly destroy a hostile superdestroyer with only your primaries isn't exactly stellar.  Of course, I think the idea behind ST was worth persuing (the Hades remains one of my favorite canon Terran ship designs aesthetically), it's just that the end result was quite lackluster.

What if your primaries are beams or shivan super lasers?

[Flipside]

Originally posted by DarthWang


What if your primaries are beams or shivan super lasers?

Then you are looking at a whole new level of mission creation silliness

[DarthWang]

I once built a mission with custom cheat codes using the 'key-pressed' command. Some of them caused a bunch of big targets to warp in that you could shoot with Shivan Super Lasers and get more points.

[Nuke]

i take it st was interplay's idea. to charge $20 for that (back when it came out, iirc), seems like a publisher's tactic to me.

[neo_hermes]

i think they stuck it to FS1 as a value pack.

[Trivial Psychic]

I think that the final mission of ST would have been better if the destroyer you were based on (GTD Soyokaze IIRC)(sp?) had jumped in to provide assistance as well, throwing in additonal escort fighters.  Then the Hades could have displayed her new teeth in the form of shivan beam cannons (or superlasers had it been for the original FS1 engine), prompting the player to knock out those turrets to prevent the destruction of the Soyokaze.

[Mefustae]

Hey, if the Superlasers on the Hades were ANYTHING like those on Luci, the Soyokaze wouldn't have lasted nearly long enough for the player to knock out the cannons, but still, and intruiging idea...

[IceFire]

You know...with that mission I managed to take the Hades down to 10% in the first 4 minutes of its arrival.  I had the perfect attack strategy (all bombers with Synaptics and bombs) and I never had to get an elastic band to take the Hades out.

Took a few minutes at the most.

Stupid yes but I managed to tactically beat that mission in a very short period of time.

[NGTM-1R]

I've always taken out the Hades in under seven minutes of its arrival.

[Nuke]

i used the time compression feature many times whilst playing the fs port

[karajorma]

I simply flew a bomber and kept rearming

[AlphaOne]

Wrong the German army wasnt defeated at stalingrad the German army was defeated when they stared the war agains Russia and when they lost the whole Army Group Center. That was the begining of the end for the german army the start of the war with russia

[Mefustae]

It's a matter of opinion when the Germans sealed their fate. Starting the War with Russia, the Dash for Stalingrad, whatever! The fact remains that you can argue that they lost the war ANYWHERE. I like to believe that the war was lost back in 1919, when Ebb (or something starting with 'E', i forget his name) failed to tell his comrade (who's name i've also forgotten) that he wanted Germany to be reformed back into a Monarchy, and his comrade announced that Germany was to become a Republic; begetting the Weimar, begetting NSDAP, begetting Hitler becoming Chancellor, begetting...well, you get the picture...

...anyhoo, i've found a way to kill the Hades in no time flat - screw Silent Threat! Play FS2!!...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by AlphaOne
Wrong the German army wasnt defeated at stalingrad the German army was defeated when they stared the war agains Russia and when they lost the whole Army Group Center. That was the begining of the end for the german army the start of the war with russia

Army Group Centre was destroyed in 1944s' Operation Bagration, after the Battle of Stalingrad was lost in 1943.  This was after the Russians had begun their counter-attack, including winning the Battle of Kursk and liberating Kiev.

I wouldn't thus define that as the turning of the tide, as the tide had already demonstratably turned. Likewise for the initial invasion; had the Germans managed to achieve their intended rapid victory over the Soviet Union - as was possible during the commencement of Operation Barbarossa - then it would have been no 'turning'.  The key point here is the definition of when the war turned against the Germans; I'd reckon that first sign would have been Stalingrad, although I guess you could perhaps attribute it to the earlier battle of Moscow (which halted the German blitzkreig).

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by aldo_14

I wouldn't thus define that as the turning of the tide, as the tide had already demonstratably turned. Likewise for the initial invasion; had the Germans managed to achieve their intended rapid victory over the Soviet Union - as was possible during the commencement of Operation Barbarossa - then it would have been no 'turning'.  The key point here is the definition of when the war turned against the Germans; I'd reckon that first sign would have been Stalingrad, although I guess you could perhaps attribute it to the earlier battle of Moscow (which halted the German blitzkreig).

Actually, while the entire Operation would have done much, much better, had it started on the pre-arranged date - Barbarossa was delayed until the 22nd thanks to the ineptitude of the Italian "War Machine" (no disrespect, but they REALLY screwed over their allies, the Germans ) - it is highly doubtful that the Operation would have succeeded. As the predecesor to Speer as Minister of Munitions (i forget his name, but he died in a plane crash that Speer was 'talked out of going on' by Hitler the night before *taps nose*) plainly pointed out; the Germans were by no means equipped to fight a war in Russia, as they planned to Bltizkreig over the entirety of the Soviet Union - an impossible mission - and as such were doomed even before the fighting had begun. So, even if you ignored the persistant cock-ups by the Armies involved (a big one being the gigantic traffic jam created when the 6th Army turning South ran into the 4th Panzer Army turning North), not to mention the ineptitude of German High Command at the time (a bloody Glass of Water would have done a better job than they did), there wasn't a chance in hell the Germans could have achieved their 'Goals' in Russia, hell, i'd go so far as to say that when Germany became dedicated to an invasion of Russia - a feat that no man throughout history has been able to accomplish, and there have been many attempts - was the turning point of their domination of Europe...*sigh* giving a speil about WWII always makes my fingers tired...what was this thread about again...?