[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by BlackDove You were both wrong. It went out with the Anubis, about the time the Ulysses project completed.

There were still lots of Apollos in service after the Great War. You're saying that they'd just drop the Apollo altogether in favor of the Ulysses when they didn't have enough Ulysses to replace them at the time?

The Valkyrie overshadowed it as soon as it went into production. It pretty much died there.

While I do love the Valkyrie , I must remind you that it is about 50% weaker than the Apollo, and has smaller missile banks.

Also, surprisingly enough, both the Valk and the Myrmidon are *less* agile than the Apollo!

Only the Ulys, Serapis, Thoth, Anubis, and Loki compare in agility terms. Of those, only the Serapis and Thoth have enough armament to compare. And the Serapis' hull is tinfoil.

Apollo and Thoth all the way!

The moment the Hercules appeared, with the new construction of engines and the devastating power of its main guns, a new standard was set.

The Apollo died in the first third of FS1. It's junk.

The Herc is slower, fatter, and much less agile than the Apollo.

Besides which, the Apollo isn't meant to be a specialized design the way the Herc or Valk is. It can do whatever you want, especially if you're not an elite unit and you don't always have the best equipment available.


*continues to stand foursquare behind the Apollo*

[BlackDove]

None of what you said is based on anything even resembling logic on any stretch of the imagination.

I can say "Apollo rules" too, it still doesn't make me right.

[Fragrag]

Originally posted by High Max

I see a Fenris or Leviathan cruiser in the background in that pic.
 

Don't think thats a Fenris or Leviathen, its the AWACS Charybydis Lucidity (w00t, she's back!) I think

[BlackDove]

Yeah, the close one is the Lucidity.

[Ace]

Most of the ships not blown up in FS2, Derelict, Warzone, and Twilight make an appearance in BWO.

Whether or not they survive BWO is anyone's guess... :devil:

[Taristin]

What about the ones that *may* have survived?


I forget, was it both the Actium and Lysander, or just one, that was destroyed?

[Cooked Salmon]

It's usually only the Lysander for me.

[NGTM-1R]

The Valkyrie is a different type of fighter for a different type of role. More to the point, it can't haul the kind of ordance the Apollo can, or survive the kind of punishment. The Ulysses can't assault a cruiser effectively; the Apollo can. The Hercules is simply hopeless as an interceptor; the Apollo has just enough speed to make it viable as one. Yes, each of these ships is superior in their designed role, but the Apollo can perform yeoman service in any of them, something endearing to commanders and quartermasters who have to do more with less after the Great War and the economic collapse that followed.

That said, I do believe that there was a relatively cheap yet clearly superior replacement to the Apollo available. The Athena.

[Cooked Salmon]

I actually despise the Ulysees.  Its shields and armour are weak.  The Apollo is a superior figher IMO.

So since there's gonna be some old capships in BWO, does that mean we'll see the GTC Lonewolf and the GVD Luxor from Derelict?

[BlackDove]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
The Valkyrie is a different type of fighter for a different type of role. More to the point, it can't haul the kind of ordance the Apollo can, or survive the kind of punishment. The Ulysses can't assault a cruiser effectively; the Apollo can. The Hercules is simply hopeless as an interceptor; the Apollo has just enough speed to make it viable as one. Yes, each of these ships is superior in their designed role, but the Apollo can perform yeoman service in any of them, something endearing to commanders and quartermasters who have to do more with less after the Great War and the economic collapse that followed.

That said, I do believe that there was a relatively cheap yet clearly superior replacement to the Apollo available. The Athena.

1. The Valkyre can attack cruisers with ease. Because of the inherintly better maneouverability, and better gun placement, it can avoid enemy fire, and doesn't have to compensate for the hull benefits. Better than the Apollo.

2. Ulysses is out of the discussion because the Valkyre can already do the afformentioned. As far as intercepting the Apollo goes, this is not even a discussion, Ulysses > Apollo by FAR.

Also, a sidenote to all of you Ulysses haters, if you're in multiplayer, the Ulysses is the second choice for a ship you need to take in order to win. The first is the Thoth.

3. Hercules can RAM the Apollo to death, or simply, because of the Apollo's size, which isn't all that considerably smaller than the Hercules, it can bite ALL SIX gunbanks from the Hercules if the two were on an intercept course with eachother. Aside from that, it can also withstand anything the Apollo dishes out at it, considering its better hull, but even more to the point - because of the superior placement to the Hercules' engines, it turns exactly like, or even FASTER than the Apollo.

I'm not even going to mention how a Hercules can RAPE any cruiser, corvette, or potentially in FS1, the Eva Destroyer.

All > Apollo.

[Taristin]

Originally posted by BlackDove

All > Apollo, and Ulysses.

[BlackDove]

Yeah, I thought that too.

Then I tried it out when my skills were peaked.

1v4 = EASY.

I was fighting two people with.....Hercules2... an erinyes, and a perseus.

They all died, in a 4v1 skirmish. That means the Torn spam, Kayser Whoring and just annoyance with the Perseus.

BD ending kills 63

Opposing team = 2 (I needed to rearm)

Turns out, the Ulysses' turn is only shorted by the Thoth, and the fact that it's slim makes it pretty much like the Tauret - hard to hit at close range when it's facing you. It's also very small, so there's not much danger even if the enemy can see below you or above you.

It's a very very nifty design. I get why they kept it from FS1.

Naturally, the Apollo, Anubis, Valkyrie, never made the cut to FS2, because while the Valk was replaced by the Perseus, there was no need to put ANYTHING to replace the Anubis or the Apollo.

[NGTM-1R]

I find it vaguely amusing you're not actually trying to counter my examples.

I find it even more amusing that you are not even TRYING to counter my main point.

Originally posted by BlackDove

1. The Valkyre can attack cruisers with ease. Because of the inherintly better maneouverability, and better gun placement, it can avoid enemy fire, and doesn't have to compensate for the hull benefits. Better than the Apollo.

In theory. In practice...not so much, particularly when you start getting Shivan Cluster Bombs going off. And that's if you go for the stand-off approach. The Valkyrie simply cannot sustain close combat with a cruiser for ANY length of time. And you willfully ignore the ability of the Apollo to haul enough ordance to actually threaten a cruiser.

Originally posted by BlackDove
2. Ulysses is out of the discussion because the Valkyre can already do the afformentioned. As far as intercepting the Apollo goes, this is not even a discussion, Ulysses > Apollo by FAR.

Again, the Ulysses cannot haul enough ordance for the task to be truly effective, and lacks the shield/hull strength to sustain close combat with a capital ship.

Originally posted by BlackDove
Also, a sidenote to all of you Ulysses haters, if you're in multiplayer, the Ulysses is the second choice for a ship you need to take in order to win. The first is the Thoth.

A completely irrevelant sidenote, no less...

Originally posted by BlackDove
3. Hercules can RAM the Apollo to death, or simply, because of the Apollo's size, which isn't all that considerably smaller than the Hercules, it can bite ALL SIX gunbanks from the Hercules if the two were on an intercept course with eachother. Aside from that, it can also withstand anything the Apollo dishes out at it, considering its better hull,...

Please. And any competent pilot knows better then to go head-to-head with a Hercules. Also, to ram it, it has to be able to both A: catch it, and B: manuver into a posistion to do so. Which it cannot.

Hull and shield strength are limited, and the Hercules is incapable of evading the Apollo for long enough to regenerate its shields.

Originally posted by BlackDove
...but even more to the point - because of the superior placement to the Hercules' engines, it turns exactly like, or even FASTER than the Apollo.

You asked for it, you begged for it, you even made up crap that doesn't actually effect the performance ingame, so here it is, the actual Rotation Time table numbers.

Apollo: 3.2, 3.2, 6.0
Hercules: 4.0, 4.5, 4.0

[BlackDove]

Oh I can play the quote game too.

Originally posted by ngtm1r:
 find it vaguely amusing you're not actually trying to counter my examples.

I find it even more amusing that you are not even TRYING to counter my main point.

Refuted all of your points with accurate and comprehensive data.

In theory. In practice...not so much, particularly when you start getting Shivan Cluster Bombs going off. And that's if you go for the stand-off approach. The Valkyrie simply cannot sustain close combat with a cruiser for ANY length of time. And you willfully ignore the ability of the Apollo to haul enough ordance to actually threaten a cruiser.

I rarely talk theory when it comes to FS (only storyline) - the rest is all 7 year old practice.

Shivan Cluster bombs pose no danger. Turrets pose NO danger. The only ordinance needed are Furies, carries 120 of them (IIRC). Very very sufficient with a Prom and an Avenger.

Again, the Ulysses cannot haul enough ordance for the task to be truly effective, and lacks the shield/hull strength to sustain close combat with a capital ship.

Again, doesn't need to. Valkyrie can do it, Ulysses wasn't designed for it. Unless you're planning to tell me how it's better to take the Apollo out for a Cruiser nuking instead of the Valkyrie or Hercules, in which case we need not argue anymore, I can declare you officially insane and move on.

Please. And any competent pilot knows better then to go head-to-head with a Hercules. Also, to ram it, it has to be able to both A: catch it, and B: manuver into a posistion to do so. Which it cannot.

Both possible, thank you very much. Apollo has to attack sometimes. That's its weakness.

Hull and shield strength are limited, and the Hercules is incapable of evading the Apollo for long enough to regenerate its shields.

Yes it is. You just need to know how.

You asked for it, you begged for it, you even made up crap that doesn't actually effect the performance ingame, so here it is, the actual Rotation Time table numbers.

Apollo: 3.2, 3.2, 6.0
Hercules: 4.0, 4.5, 4.0

Numbers are great, experience is even better. I know how they handle ingame, I also know how the engines work.

Theory doesn't stand up to actual experience.

You lose.

[Taristin]

Turn times mean nothing when you have both MOI and damp affecting it as well.

[BlackDove]

I'm not even going to discuss what other weapons do to turning, especially stuff like the Flail, all of which are detrimental to gameplay and turning itself.

I am however, most assuredly NOT going to get a lecture on turning, seeing how I was involved in discovering the error display in the turning itself regarding FS2.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
The Valkyrie is a different type of fighter for a different type of role. More to the point, it can't haul the kind of ordance the Apollo can, or survive the kind of punishment. The Ulysses can't assault a cruiser effectively; the Apollo can. The Hercules is simply hopeless as an interceptor; the Apollo has just enough speed to make it viable as one. Yes, each of these ships is superior in their designed role, but the Apollo can perform yeoman service in any of them, something endearing to commanders and quartermasters who have to do more with less after the Great War and the economic collapse that followed.

THANK you. That was the other thing I was trying to say.

That said, I do believe that there was a relatively cheap yet clearly superior replacement to the Apollo available. The Athena.

Perhaps. But the Athena was supposed to be a design brought out of mothballs for FS1, I thought. The tech fluff seems to imply it, I thought.

Turn times mean nothing when you have both MOI and damp affecting it as well.

Oh, fun. Now we've gotta calculate the moment of inertia.

But I'll stick behind my Apollo anyhow.

[Boomer]

*continues to stand foursquare behind the Apollo*

*Shoots Mad Bomber in kneecaps*

The Apollo, when fights were determined by armor strength, was an excellent design.  However, with the advent of shields it became, somewhat, disadvantaged.

Why?

A:  It doesn't have the maneuverability to keep away from most fighters long enough to recharge shields unless you crank the shield energy all the way up while using the Afterburner.

B:  They're incredibly easy targets.  only the Herc or Ursa beats it in that department.

C:  Weapons compatibility:  While the Apollo was supposed to be space superiority, it doesn't have as flexible a load as many boast.  The only decent missile for its primary role, SS, is the Interceptor, because Hornets just don't do well against maneuverable fighters, bombers ok, but fighters? no.  And as we all know, the Hornet didn't help with Capships because it has practically no Subsystem damage.  Only with a load of Furies was it all that great in the assault role.

Here's why the Ulysses owned:

A:  Fast, maneuverable.  Could rival the Valk in speed.  

B:  Small target profile.

C:  Anti-Cap:  While most people say the Ulysses is useless in this role, they obviously never used the D-Missile.  A coupl'a D-Missiles and a disruptor, or even a bloody prometheus made short work of subsystems and cruisers.

It's not so much the turning speed that makes a ship, its how good that ship is at fulfilling its purpose.  The Apollo was hard pressed to enforce Space Superiority against anything bigger than an Anubis with the exception of the Aten.

*Remains ready to defend the Ulysses honor*

[Mad Bomber]

I still stick with the assumption that the myriad Terran Blocs had to use Apollos for quite a while before they had enough Ulysses and Hercs to replace them.

I mean, the Antarans and Luytenese and GTA could maybe have gotten their own Ulysses fairly quickly, depending on how you interpret their post-FS1 situation (cash-strapped and minus 75-90% of their military production capacity), but the Adharans in particular had to build up their systems from scratch since they were in Shivan hands (er... claws) from just about day one. Probably were the last systems retaken, too.

That, along with the large number of Apollos and their requisite parts left over from the T-V War, means that they would have been used at least by mercenaries and opportunistic pirates, probably[/u] by the Terran Blocs prior to 2345, and possibly by the emasculated GTA (as training fighters perhaps).

I mean, they still ran, didn't they? With the massive depletion of forces post-Hades, one would think the GTA would be desperate to keep as much out there as they could, even if it was kinda obsolete, just to keep the HOL from going crazy. (They did get the HLD Prophecy as far as Delta Serpentis, after all.)

So, IMO, the Apollo was still in use after the Great War. Exactly how long and in what capacity is up to various campaign peoples' imaginations.

[Kosh]

The Ulysses is harder to fly because you have to be able to take advantage of it's really low profile and high manuverability.

I think that's why so many people hate flying it is because they can't take advantage of it.

It is an incredibly annoying fighter to fly AGAINST because of it's high manuverability and low profile. Especially in a Horus because of its very wide gunpoints.

But the Myrmidon pwns both the Apollo and the Ulysses.


And by the way, what was "Twilight"?