[TrashMan]

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.

You mean the Zeus?
Cause the Athena (mk2) has the same fire points as a FS1 Athena.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

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

The Valk never has enough firepower to suit my tastes. The Perseus is a lot better.

[Paladin327]

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

The Valk never has enough firepower to suit my tastes. The Perseus is a lot better.

i agree there, the extra missile bank is very useful

[Mongoose]

Psh, only n00bs use missiles.  Real men stick to primaries.

[redsniper]

People are hating on the Valkyrie. Come on guys, I love the Perseus (It might be my favorite ship) but the Valk is a goddamned CLASSIC.

[Klaustrophobia]

to be completely honest i was quite disappointed with the perseus compared to the valk.  i didn't much care for the trend in making the fs2 fighters slower.

[NGTM-1R]

People are hating on the Valkyrie. Come on guys, I love the Perseus (It might be my favorite ship) but the Valk is a goddamned CLASSIC.

Shivan bombers have weirdly posistioned and impossible to get rid of turrets, or there's a very small chance I would have agreed.

[Snail]

to be completely honest i was quite disappointed with the perseus compared to the valk.  i didn't much care for the trend in making the fs2 fighters slower.

On balance the Perseus had better shields, armor and weapons.

[Timerlane]

The Perseus' afterburner is practically identical to the Myrmidon's(+5 top speed, +10 Aburn fuel).

Arguably, the Myrm is a better pure bomber-interceptor than the Perseus, due to it's ability to slap its prey with the same(secondaries; well, same Tornadoes, no Harpoons, but can carry one extra Treb) or better(guns) armament and take a little more abuse from turrets in return, while being basically just as fast. If you like, you can even throw on a pair of Morning Stars for bomb-killing without diluting your anti-ship primary damage rate(due to the linked-bank penalty).

Not as good at dealing with escort fighters, perhaps(unless the escort fighters are heavy assault fighters, in which case the Myrm's extra speed, with comparable handling and tightly-grouped gun mounts, will give it a decent edge).

[General Battuta]

The Myrmidon is a deathtrap and the Perseus isn't.

Anyone who's fought them with Fury AI can attest to this. The Myrmidon is just a joke in a furball. The Perseus is a very tough customer.

The Myrm does do pretty well against things which are in front of it, though.

[IronBeer]

The Myrm does do pretty well against things which are in front of it, though.

See, that's the problem. The Myrm flies like a next-gen Apollo- it can have some trouble positioning things in front of it.

[el_magnifico]

The Valkyrie... Well, I don't hate it, but I think its Serapis-like hull and shields absolutely kill it in FS2.

The Perseus is a nice interceptor, but it really needs some extra speed or a better reactor. However, I prefer the Myrmidon for interceptor role. And even before the Trebuchet was developed, the Myrmidon was compatible with Stiletto II missiles.

Another interesting option for interception, IMHO, is a Loki. It's fast, tough, with a small profile, has good maneuverability, and its reactor can support even the most energy demanding weapons.
There are many possibilities for the loadout. I generally go with Prom-S/Prom-S/Tempest, but the Loki is capable of carrying Maxim, Kayser, and Trebuchet too.
The only problem is the small secondary capacity (and the secondaries firing points).

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).

I'm a layman in these things, but that was an interesting reading BengalTiger.

Is there any compilation of theories about Freespace weapons?

[Timerlane]

Another interesting option for interception, IMHO, is a Loki. It's fast, tough, with a small profile, has good maneuverability, and its reactor can support even the most energy demanding weapons.

Absolutely. As long as missiles aren't a priority, it's definitely a contender(though running away and calling in a support ship once you're several kilometers away from any pursuers is an option), and the extra energy can always be transferred into shields on demand.

Disturbing for a Great-War-era prototype stealth fighter(something supposed to have a minimal EM signature), it is. Better shields(double!) and hull than the non-stealth Valkyrie(and Apollo, at that), while having nearly the same top-speed, Herc I-level energy output and cannon energy storage?

Don't tell me 32 years couldn't improve the Valk's shields to a much more acceptable level. Or for that matter, especially looking at the Erinyes' afterburners, tell me the cutting edge(GTVA's "newest fighter", first combat field test during the Second Shivan Incursion) Perseus interceptor shouldn't have better engines than that.

[BengalTiger]

I'm a layman in these things, but that was an interesting reading BengalTiger.

Is there any compilation of theories about Freespace weapons?

I think that only Shivan Theories got their place in the FS Wiki.
A weapons/technologies section with theories/ideas selected as the best would also be a nice addition.

Don't tell me 32 years couldn't improve the Valk's shields to a much more acceptable level. Or for that matter, especially looking at the Erinyes' afterburners, tell me the cutting edge(GTVA's "newest fighter", first combat field test during the Second Shivan Incursion) Perseus interceptor shouldn't have better engines than that.

Well, there's "replace an old fighter" and there's "officially doesn't exist".
The GTF Perseus is the newest fighter in the GTVA's arsenal. Slated to replace the aging Valkyrie as the Alliance's primary interceptor, the Perseus's high max speed and maneuverability make it ideal to hunt and destroy enemy bombers. Perseus fighters have been assigned to the 3rd Battle Group on a trial basis, with wide deployment expected after the OpEval period. Primary weapons include the Subach HL-7 and Prometheus cannon, with secondary loads of Harpoon and Hornet missiles. Preliminary results have shown the Perseus to be a superb fighter.
The tech description says the Perseus is new, but it doesn't say it's cutting edge. It may be a replacement for the Valk to lower maintainance costs (the part where wide deployment is expected even gives a hint it isn't too expensive); just like the Boa replaces the Ursa but isn't a better ship at all.

[Timerlane]

Newest fighter. The Command Brief for TSM-122x/Training 6(a.k.a. our introduction to the 242nd Suicide Kings) also claims, "The Perseus is the next-generation interceptor, the fastest fighter in the GTVA." Admittedly, it contradicts the Horus' Tech Room description, but it does suggest the Perseus should have been quicker than it currently is.

EDIT: My rationale also was that I'd believe a fighter clearly developed during a serious, ongoing war(18+ months), will probably have more focus on improved performance than on cost-cutting.

To be fair, an as-is Perseus with the added speed of a Horus or Valk is a pretty scary concept; I'd settle for something in the 150 or 155 range, with some relatively meaningful AB stamina(say, Aburn Fuel 350, Aburn Burn Rate 50? Still 25% less efficient consumption than the Valk and 50 less fuel reserve(reflecting the more powerful engines and improved reactor working to overcome the added weight of hull and weapons, sort of like the Ares)).

[Androgeos Exeunt]

On default ETS settings, the Perseus is actually slower than the Valkyrie. As a benchmark, use the maximum afterburner velocity of the SF Manticore, which is 155 m/s. The only Terran and Vasudan ships that are capable of matching that speed are the Valkyrie, Horus, Pegasus and Ptah.

[Mongoose]

I don't think I'd mind the Perseus's lower max afterburner speed nearly as much if its capacity was substantially higher.  As-is, it isn't that much better in that regard than one or two other Terran ships, whereas the Valkyrie was far-and-away better than anything else in the GTA fleet.  You could cover a hefty distance in a very short period of time if you kept that afterburner pegged.

[BengalTiger]

Newest fighter. The Command Brief for TSM-122x/Training 6(a.k.a. our introduction to the 242nd Suicide Kings) also claims, "The Perseus is the next-generation interceptor, the fastest fighter in the GTVA." Admittedly, it contradicts the Horus' Tech Room description, but it does suggest the Perseus should have been quicker than it currently is.

EDIT: My rationale also was that I'd believe a fighter clearly developed during a serious, ongoing war(18+ months), will probably have more focus on improved performance than on cost-cutting.

Remember that the Terran part of the GTVA is after some economical crisis from being separated from Earth in addition to that war with the NTF. Also note that the Perseus is the newest production fighter, which will be used in large numbers. I wouldn't be surprized if the Erynies and Ares were newer designs.

[NGTM-1R]

The development of the Perseus, or at least the minimum design specs that would have been issued to cause it's development, are probably older than 18 months.

Now, everyone's complaining the Perseus is designed wrong. I agree, marginally, but would argue that Valkyrie is designed even more wrong.

The basic task of an interceptor is engage enemy bombers and destroy them before they can release their weapons. Only two requirements arise from this: speed and firepower. In the FSverse where many bombers also have a turret and/or Piranhas and Synaptics, and all bombers have escort fighters, some durabilty is also required to ensure you get your interceptor back.

Of these three requirements, the Valkyrie has only speed. It lacks firepower slightly in comparison to its contemporaries and it heavily lacks durabilty. Firepower is marginally excuseable since it's from the pre-shields age and things were more fragile then, but this only makes the Valkyrie's extremely weak hull even more of a problem. Both the Osiris and Amun have two turrets firing what are very powerful weapons in the pre-shield days and a Valkyrie attacking a defensive box of such ships is far too likely to be lost to their turrets, to say nothing of being intercepted in turn by escorting fighters.

The Perseus has some speed, but not as much as the Valkyrie. It does, however, offer firepower and durability at least no worse than its contemporaries, improving in two categories over the one it lost in.

The truth is that all FS interceptors, including every fan design I've ever seen with the exception of BlackWolf's Draco, are designed wrong. High manuverability should be the province of Space Superiority designs, who actually need it for their assigned role of dogfighting. Interceptors only need to outmanuver bombers; they should be fast, well-protected designs with average or above-average firepower and only enough manuverability to outfly their primary targets.

(If this sounds like it would obselete assault fighters, then it might if the interceptor and assaults aren't specialized into their roles enough, but as it stands, FS interceptors obselete space superiority fighters anyways because they're not specialized into their roles enough.)

[Timerlane]

The truth is that all FS interceptors, including every fan design I've ever seen with the exception of BlackWolf's Draco, are designed wrong. High manuverability should be the province of Space Superiority designs, who actually need it for their assigned role of dogfighting. Interceptors only need to outmanuver bombers; they should be fast, well-protected designs with average or above-average firepower and only enough manuverability to outfly their primary targets.

Looking at the Myrm, I actually was thinking much the same thing. Put some really decent thrusters/engines and a better reactor in there(supporting the increased AB power and a somewhat heavier shield), and it would be a beautiful 'Heavy Interceptor'. Then redesignate the unmodified Perseus as Space Superiority, and all is right with the world.

EDIT: I'd say Heavy Assault fighters are/should be slowish craft with cavernous missile banks and Maxim capability(non-bomb-carrying light bombers that can still defend themselves). The Erinyes needs a redesignation there(Strategic Space Superiority? ), but otherwise, I think it works.