[High Max]

;-)

[Colonol Dekker]

Athena is best. Derp Derp Derp.
 
 
 
What was this topic about again?

[S-99]

Fs2's version of the athena was absolutely horrible. Wides set firing points, to balance out the fact that it carries bombs? I loved the athenas firing points. Dead on they were, you couldn't equip the most powerful primaries on it, but i didn't care.

[headdie]

Fs2's version of the athena was absolutely horrible. Wides set firing points, to balance out the fact that it carries bombs? I loved the athenas firing points. Dead on they were, you couldn't equip the most powerful primaries on it, but i didn't care.

except i think the biggest secondary the athena could cary was a stilttto and i personaly found it a good heavy dogfighter

[BengalTiger]

Also, Vasudans have better engine designs, though Terrans get the better end of the stick when it comes to armor and firepower, in most cases, its seems.

The Vasudans seem to have better beams too.

[Paladin327]

Also, Vasudans have better engine designs, though Terrans get the better end of the stick when it comes to armor and firepower, in most cases, its seems.

The Vasudans seem to have better beams too.

however, the vasudans have to insert a plasma core before firing, no evidence the terrans have to do the same...

[Androgeos Exeunt]

The Vasudans have better beams, but they don't use them often, which pretty much offsets several advantages they hold over Terran beams.

[redsniper]

Wait wait wait wait wait..... are people seriously hating on the Valkyrie??? WTFH?!

[High Max]

;-)

[Mongoose]

Perseus is better because it has higher marks in most areas and is next gen.

The Perseus is a better all-around space superiority fighter, but in the role of a pure interceptor, nothing beats the Valkyrie.

[IronBeer]

Valk owns pretty hard in dogfights so long as it doesn't need to absorb incoming firepower. I liked it better than the Ulysses back in FS1.

[S-99]

Fs2's version of the athena was absolutely horrible. Wides set firing points, to balance out the fact that it carries bombs? I loved the athenas firing points. Dead on they were, you couldn't equip the most powerful primaries on it, but i didn't care.

except i think the biggest secondary the athena could cary was a stilttto and i personaly found it a good heavy dogfighter

That's what i mean when i said that the fs2 upgrade variant of the athena has wide set firing point to balance out the fact that it carries bombs. The athena not carrying bombs i was all fine with when flying it. It was an awesome durable dog fighter.

Though it doesn't carry bombs, if you equip a bunch of subsystem ****ing missiles. Then that's where it excels very well at disabling cruisers and the like.

[BengalTiger]

The Vasudans seem to have better beams too.

however, the vasudans have to insert a plasma core before firing, no evidence the terrans have to do the same...

I'd say all factions need plasma cores. The difference in color could be obtained by plasmifying (is that even a word?) different elements- for instance, neon has it's emissive spectrum in the reds, sodium's yellowish, a mix of Xe, Kr and Ar would make white, polonium would be AAAf-ish and Bk would emit mostly green.

Now I'll insert a SWAG that beams shoot particles which are plasmified from cores, and which get sooo loaded with energy during firing (perhaps involving mucho electrons bombarding them), that they glow in their emissive spectrum. The glow around the turret could be plasma which leaked out without being accelerated for some reason. The warmup is the phase when the plasmifying process is already working, but the acceleration isn't; and cooldown would be when the accelerator is already off, but a cloud of particles is still gathered around the turret (perhaps still bombarded by mucho electrons).

[SpardaSon21]

If you are going to make plasma by bombarding elements with electrons, why not simply accelerate the electrons at the enemy ship?  FS2 beams have a lot of plasma in then, and it would be easier to just skip the plasmafication for all that plasma and instead fire EPB's at your enemies.

[General Battuta]

I don't think an electron beam would be a hugely effective weapon. Electrons are kind of wimpy.

[SpardaSon21]

You're expending a lot of energy to bombard elements with electrons, and then expending even more energy to accelerate that plasma towards the enemy.  Wouldn't it be more energy-efficient to just forget the plasmafication and use the energy that would have been needed for that to hurl a crapload of electrons towards your enemy?  Yes, they're small, but they're relativistic after all.

[General Battuta]

Where is this whole 'bombarding elements with electrons' thing coming from?

[SpardaSon21]

Now I'll insert a SWAG that beams shoot particles which are plasmified from cores, and which get sooo loaded with energy during firing (perhaps involving mucho electrons bombarding them), that they glow in their emissive spectrum.

[BengalTiger]

Well, maybe bombarding ships with electrons didn't produce cool looking beams visible in space?

As I wrote, my theory about beams is a SWAG based on the fact that beams are plasma obtained from cores, which appears to fly at a relativistic speed while glowing.
What about accelerating a stream of electrons in an EM field which then push the particles that are evaporated off the plasma core?

Where is this whole 'bombarding elements with electrons' thing coming from?

If you bombard particles with fast enough electrons, could get them to glow, in a spectrum that's unique to each element.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_discharge_lamp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum

[General Battuta]

I know what an emission spectrum is, but I strongly doubt that bombarding atoms (not particles) with electrons is the way you want to go about this.

However I'm actually in favor of the plasma beam theory.