[NGTM-1R]

DH is actually identical in the tables. It's the placebomber. 

The Zeus can't really hack it. It doesn't have the manuverablity or speed to truly fulfil the strike-bomber role. This could be forgiven, and it might still work, if it were to have the durablity to compensate. But it doesn't. I was once going to build a campaign around a scout-bomber squadron that used the Zeus exculsively, but after a few missions it became painfully apparent that the Zeus just was not up to the task.

[Unknown Target]

Zeus/Medusa for me. The Zeus is fast with some bomber qualities, while the Medusa is mostly bomber with some un-bomber speed.

[Goober5000]

Here's what I wrote on the Wiki:

[t]he Zeus is excellent for what it was designed for. It's a strike bomber, which means that it's used for tactical as opposed to destructive bombing. If you need to take out a few capships, obviously the Medusa or Ursa would be a better choice. But if you need to knock out subsystems or you need to be able to dogfight as well as drop a few bombs here and there, the Zeus is the way to go. Summary: The Medusa is better for destroying lots of ships, but you wouldn't want to dogfight in it. The Athena is better for dogfighting, but it can't carry the Tsunami. Ergo the Zeus fills an important vacancy in the FS1 bomber lineup.

The Zeus is used in several important missions in Silent Threat: Reborn.

[Mars]

Tease 

[Goober5000]

Actually, it wasn't meant as such.  I just wanted to convey that I know, from experience, that there are situations for which the Zeus is well suited.

[IceFire]

What we really need is an actual B17-like bomber for FS2. As in, somewhat larger than even the Ursa, upwards of 6 turrets, with a massive payload, and the ability to fire 4 torpedoes at once.

The SMB Vanir bomber for BWO is a massive bomber with 6 turrets and has 8 gunpoints.


As for 4-shot torpedoes, you'd need a separate weapon with a swarm of 2, so that 4 would fire in dual-fire mode.

Its actually really hard to use...ad yes its nearly the size of a small cruiser.  When a group of 3 of these arrive on the scene and start dumping torpedoes its not a pleasant view if your on the wrong side of things.

Boanerges was my favourite bomber followed by the Artemis and the Medusa.  Also the Sekhmet was of fun.

[Carl]

Isn't that thing supposed to be nearly the size of a small cruiser?

yeah, well, so is the Ursa.

[Mars]

The small Faustus is roughly four times the length and five times the voleume of the Ursa.

[FireCrack]

Yeah, the ursa's big, but hardly a small cruiser.

Unless you mean modern naval cruisers, in wich case you may get somwhere close for a realy small cruiser...

[Mars]

At that point a warship would be considered a frigate (by the US at least), or a destroyer by WWII standards.

[Kosh]

The Artemis was a light bomber, the Medusa is not. It was never supposed to replace it.

However as there is no Terran medium bomber then, the Artemis defaults to the role.

Not totally true, there just isn't a NEW Terran medium bomber. For some wierd reason they didn't bother to replace it. Then again they didn't totally replace the Fenris either.

[Mars]

...they didn't totally replace the Fenris either.

The Aeolus (if they had decided to continue production) would have been the perfect replacment for the Fenris. The Deimos does mostley fufil the strike role, but it seems rather inefficent to send in a giant warship that is a major fleet asset where a small cruiser would work just as well, and put thousands fewer people at risk however, since it takes four Cyclops torpedos to destroy the Fenris, the Fenris can't really fufill its role either.

Also, it is my opinion that the Zeus is the light (strike) bomber, and the Artemis is the medium bomber.

[Kosh]

I'm pretty sure the Artemis was supposed to replace the Zues.

The Aeolus (if they had decided to continue production) would have been the perfect replacment for the Fenris

Yes, but they didn't so that's kind of a moot point.

[achtung]

For me?  Ursa, hands down.  Both asthetically and in usefulness.

Reasonably maneuvarable, great shielding, large payload, and good primaries.

[S-99]

Oh man i hate the artemis with a passion.
The artemis is awesome for bombing, but i hate where the ****ing gunpoints are located.
I like the fact that it shoots for lasers at the same time, but they're way too offset for dogfighting or even hitting a turret accurately.
The athena on the other hand, the most powerful laser you could put on it was the avenger, but it had very concentrated gunpoints, the athena equipped with avengers was still very powerful.
Plus the athena was tough as ****, it could take a whole lot of punishment, i wished that the athena was in fs2, i swear as a fighter, it could take a lot of punishment.
But, my main choice of bomber is the Sekhmet, it's like a shivan bomber, but way cooler.
Also fast, takes punishment, and can get the job done:)

[Mars]

The Athena and Artemis have identical shields, but the Artemis has 75 more hitpoints, making it basically equivalent to the Athena tougness-wise.

[NGTM-1R]

Not totally true, there just isn't a NEW Terran medium bomber. For some wierd reason they didn't bother to replace it. Then again they didn't totally replace the Fenris either.

Incorrect. The Artemis is deployed to fulfil a medium bomber role in your time with the 64th Raptors. You sure as hell don't send strike bombers for blockade, or against a destroyer. It also has a decidely medium bomber-equivalent payload.

[ZmaN]

I was actually using the Boangeras bomber today in a few missions and despite what I've read, it performs very nicely, I think...  It does a better job than the Ursa, and the turret is better becasue its a Prometheus S turret, not a disruptor turret like the ursa....
Ursa's are very nice too....
Vasudan Sekhmet bombers are sweet...  Their actually quite manueverable....  considering that they are bombers that can carry cyclops..

Oh that reminds me, how can a myrmidon carry cyclops torpedoes?  I cant see that happening...

[ZmaN]

Oh man i hate the artemis with a passion.
The artemis is awesome for bombing, but i hate where the ****ing gunpoints are located.
I like the fact that it shoots for lasers at the same time, but they're way too offset for dogfighting or even hitting a turret accurately.
The athena on the other hand, the most powerful laser you could put on it was the avenger, but it had very concentrated gunpoints, the athena equipped with avengers was still very powerful.
Plus the athena was tough as ****, it could take a whole lot of punishment, i wished that the athena was in fs2, i swear as a fighter, it could take a lot of punishment.
But, my main choice of bomber is the Sekhmet, it's like a shivan bomber, but way cooler.
Also fast, takes punishment, and can get the job done:)

Its not like the Ursa DIDNT have that problem...  Dude, three of the banks are offset so you need to aim OUTSIDE of your reticle to hit an enemy ship thats smaller than the middle of your HUD reticle.....

[S-99]

I know but the artemis sucks fulfilling a fighter role.
I hate doing something like having to take down dragons with the artemis and it's wideset guns.
Usually i spin my craft to make the lasers hit, but still, i hate the artemis when i have to do a fighter role with it.