[blowfish]

Whoa,



Since you're new here, its ok, but in the future, please try to avoid bumping month-old threads.

[Fenrir]

I`m curious. How old does a thread have to be for it to be taboo to bump it, anyway?

like, if the poster reeeeally wanted to discuss this topic, should he have simply made another thread, despite the inevitable complaints of "omg we did this last month"?

[Mobius]

I think it's always better to post on old threads rather than creating new ones unless you're looking for something that derails from the main topic.

Look at Campaign threads in Missions and Campaigns, people can't create new threads simply because the specific campaign thread they looked for has relatively old posts.

[BlueFlames]

...people can't create new threads simply because the specific campaign thread they looked for has relatively old posts.

Actually, they can.  They just don't, which is pretty silly, since it becomes difficult to sift through enormous threads for older/popular campaigns, when looking for information on a specific issue related to that campaign.

[haloboy100]

Whoa,



Since you're new here, its ok, but in the future, please try to avoid bumping month-old threads.

Dude, it was only a month.

Doesn't have to be older to be a necro?

[Mobius]

Actually, they can.  They just don't, which is pretty silly, since it becomes difficult to sift through enormous threads for older/popular campaigns, when looking for information on a specific issue related to that campaign.

Yes for game issues, no for plot questions and related things...

[Cobra]

Oh for the love of God, can we please stop discussing why and when to post in month-old threads? None of you are the ****in' post police except for the admins and mods. If there is a necro post, they will say something.

[Mongoose]

If it's someone bumping a random thread for the hell of it, or one that's something like five years old, I'd step right up to lock it.  But if a few-month-old thread gets a bump that results in renewed worthwhile discussion, I don't see much of a problem with letting it slide (unless a particular poster makes a habit of doing so).  That's this mod's opinion, at any rate.  Besides, this thread already had a much larger bump several pages back that resulted in renewed interest, so there's no reason the same can't happen again.

[Fenrir]

Back on topic...

The Perseus is my fighter of choice. It`s fun dodging missiles without even having to use countermeasures, and I like how it can carry a decent amount of missiles. I do concede that the Valkyrie is also an awesome fighter, however. I swear that you can hold that afterburner for more than 5 seconds or something. It`s crazy.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

The Perseus is the Terran Dragon if you ask me. The GTF Pegasus may be faster and more maneuverable, but it's too weak in terms of hull strength to compare.

I prefer a slower craft; makes aiming easier. This is why I prefer the Ursa over every other bomber class except the Sekhmet, and the Ares over every other combat fighter.

By the way, how do you do a Necrothreadageded beam?

[Snail]

The Perseus is the Terran Dragon if you ask me. The GTF Pegasus may be faster and more maneuverable, but it's too weak in terms of hull strength to compare.

I say the Ulysses is the Terran Dragon. The Ulysses is more maneuverable and it has a smaller target profile than the Perseus and it also has the same amount of primary firepower (in dogfights, missiles don't matter as much as lasers, I find).

But the Ulysses sucks even when a Fenris or something big jumps in; I'd take the Perseus anytime.

I prefer a slower craft; makes aiming easier. This is why I prefer the Ursa over every other bomber class except the Sekhmet, and the Ares over every other combat fighter.

If you have trouble aiming with faster fighters, you can always tone down the sensitivity or something (do you use a joystick or a mouse?). And I agree, the Sekhmet and the Ares rule (I actually found the last mission of the Procyon Insurgency easier with the Sekhmet than the Amun Mark 2).

By the way, how do you do a Necrothreadageded beam?

:necro:

[Stormkeeper]

I personally like the Perseus too. Nice blend of speed and firepower; plus it can really move. Although, if there are capital ships, I'd take an Erynies. 8 primaries can put the hurt on most cruisers, even if they're all Subach HL-7s. Plus its secondary banks are respectable. My only irritation is that its side target profile is as long as a limo.

[Snail]

The Perseus is decent enough for neutralizing capital ships; it can carry the Treb which is good for disabling turrets and subsystems. But if the Erinyes is available I'd probably take it for most missions, for obvious reasons.

[Iranon]

Hmm, I wonder about the role of bias in our assessments... for example, it seems like Volition tried to put people off the Pegasus with the tech room description when all it lacks is firepower (2 Prometheus S at the most). Its durability is only a smidgeon below other Terran light fighters, more than offset by the tiny target profile and faster recharge rate (50% more power output than a Perseus or Ulysses) even before you take into account speed and manoeverability. Most people seem to completely ignore energy output, at least for ships that don't have 4-gun banks and Kayser compatibility.


Terran command seems to approve the oddest of ships... the Perseus is disappointingly slow for an interceptor (while being durable enough for extended dogfights), the Myrmidon is too sluggish for its stated primary role, the Artemis suffers from extremely poor gun placement which is terrible in a Bomber that appears optimised for some dogfighting ability, the Boanerges is a big fat target without even a turret to defend itself...
The Erinyes and Perseus I can accept as crafts meant to fulfil a variety of roles, but the others seem poorly designed.

[Snail]

IMO quite a few of the new FS2 ships weren't as good as the old FS1 ships.

[Stormkeeper]

I always thought the Apollo was a pretty good fighter; fast for its size, and respectable firepower. And its rear and front target profile is pretty flat.

I had some problems with the Valkyrie's primary placements; the ones on the ends of the wings. More a personal thing than anything ...

[Snail]

They weren't on the ends of the wings, they were actually in the middle. I found them easy to aim with.

Does anyone here think the Apollo was better than the Myrmidon?

[Stormkeeper]

*wave* Me. But the Myrmidon has plus points in secondaries. Especially when you have no bombers available, only Helioses and Myrmidons.

[ShadowGorrath]

They weren't on the ends of the wings, they were actually in the middle. I found them easy to aim with.

Does anyone here think the Apollo was better than the Myrmidon?

If a Perseus is not present, I'd choose the Apollo. So yea, it's better than the Myrmidon ( or any other fighter other than the Perseus ) in my opinion.

[Snail]

*wave* Me. But the Myrmidon has plus points in secondaries. Especially when you have no bombers available, only Helioses and Myrmidons.

I still don't accept that ever intended the Myrmidon to be able to carry the Helios.