[Droid803]

Hence the "if" - it was a hypothetical.

[Aardwolf]

Well, the cutscenes were all named "Ancients #", and what they say certainly makes the most sense if it's interpreted as being from the POV of the Ancients... The fact that you begin seeing the cutscenes before you discover the Ancients is IMO not relevant... consider the Bosch Monologues from FS2 by comparison... the GTVA never would have heard any of that until well after you had heard and watched all of them...

[General Battuta]

Lt. Polpolion says,

The heavy bomber is obsolete. The strike bomber is dying. A more effective, efficient means of attacking well-defended targets must be devised.

Discuss.

[Dilmah G]

Captain Dilmah says,

Leftenant, I like your forward thinking.

But as to the statement, well. To devastate a well defended target autonomously (if this is the case, I personally support a combined arms method), the craft must be able to perform a number of roles, or their side needs to have means to deal with them.

1. Suppression of enemy fighter and bomber attacks

2. Carry heavy weapons to do the damage. Perhaps, instead of reinventing the bomber, we can reinvent its warheads? Perhaps we could utilize SSMs more often?

3. Have the ability to punch hard enough through the target's screen, and live to tell the tale.

The way I see it, we'll either be producing frigates, or different types of bombers, rather than reinventing the wheel.

Perhaps, we should reinvent the bomber. What are the flaws of the current bombers?

1. They are slow, and lack maneuverability.

2. They lack effective anti-fighter armament.

So how do we fix these things?

1. We sacrifice payload for speed, and consider giving it directional thrusters.
and

2. We mount flak cannons instead of laser turrets. I don't know how feasible this may be. :\

Regardless. I propose that we focus our energies upon manufacturing light bombers, with the aforementioned attributes. These bombers will have the speed to potentially outrun, or match their interceptors. The flak cannons will serve as a deterrent at the least, and may protect the bomber from close range attacks.

With the ability to rearm in the field of engagement, we can make numerous assaults against the target with the same ships, repeatedly punching through the defensive screen to deliver a handful of warheads, disengaging, and going in again.

The alternative to this, is to build a heavy, heavy, bomber, the way I see it. Perhaps we sacrifice afterburners and maneuverability for ridiculously heavy armour plating and defensive armament comparable to small cruisers? Deployed two at a time at most, these craft would need a decent fighter escort, but they would pack a real punch, assuming we can fit several cyclops banks into it.



Or, I may have completely misunderstood what Battuta was on about. If so, feel free to ignore.

[General Battuta]

I concur. If you're going to stick with bombers, they either need to get a lot lighter or a lot heavier.

[Droid803]

Agreed.
With advances in fighter and capital-ship technology, bombers have an increasingly difficult time delivering their payload.

Seems like subspace missiles are a fairly good option - while each warhead may cost more, you don't run the risk of losing all the warheads before they're even launched like with bombers. In a sense, subspace torpedoes represent one extreme of bomber design (the light side) : you sacrifice loadout (one warhead) in favour of speed. The bomber has become so light all it is is the bomb itself.

The other extreme would basically be a small torpedo cruiser or missile bus.

[NGTM-1R]

2. Carry heavy weapons to do the damage. Perhaps, instead of reinventing the bomber, we can reinvent its warheads? Perhaps we could utilize SSMs more often?

Dumbfire racks of heavy antimatter warheads with a high-boost engine. The main vunerablity of bomber designs is in the acquistion phase, as they must obtain and maintain target lock for unreasonably long periods of time to successfully launch all their ordnance, and it requires a massive number to launch at once to overwhelm defenses.

A simple rapid-launch cell of six or so warheads promises hits despite defenses in most cases.

[Dilmah G]

Yeah, that's a good idea. Although the fuse might be a problem (I assume correct detonation of the warhead is one of the reasons aspect lock is acquired). As long as pilots are aware of the effective range of the warhead, I think this'll be a good strategy.

[General Battuta]

2. Carry heavy weapons to do the damage. Perhaps, instead of reinventing the bomber, we can reinvent its warheads? Perhaps we could utilize SSMs more often?

Dumbfire racks of heavy antimatter warheads with a high-boost engine. The main vunerablity of bomber designs is in the acquistion phase...

Well...this assertion is true for players, but in a way it's disproven by the AI, who don't need to lock at all and can even perform off-boresight bomb launches.

[Herra Tohtori]

Lt. Polpolion says:

Dividing your forces into units smaller than two ships is not recommendable. Lack of mutual support will soon result in your forces being divided into units smaller than one ship.

This holds true for all sorts of units under your command. No ship should ever be forced to operate alone. Two ships operating as a pair can do much more than two ships operating individually.

Avoid solo operations at all costs - if you are a fighter or gunship pilot, stick close enough to your wingmen that you can support them and they can support you. If you command a capital ship, cover the weak spots of other capital ships flying close to you. Position your ship so that other ships in formation can cover your weak spots.

Conversely, attempts to tactically isolate enemy ships should be greatly encouraged.

[Dilmah G]

Ah, good points. That second last point especially is a good one, and one I've been toying with recently as part of the hnoon/bbaiting remix.

The Deimos corvette is a very good example of a ship that's able to provide very good mutual support to other ships of its class if they're sortied together and in proper formation.

Conversely, attempts to tactically isolate enemy ships should be greatly encouraged.

I believe our revolutionized strike bomber would be very good for this, once the hole in screen is punched, repeated attacks by the bombers on the vessel's weak points may be able to force it out of formation. Much how Luftwaffe pilots made head on attacks at American daylight bomber formations (where their firepower was the least concentrated) and picked off the stragglers with extreme prejudice.

[NGTM-1R]

Well...this assertion is true for players, but in a way it's disproven by the AI, who don't need to lock at all and can even perform off-boresight bomb launches.

I did suggest rapid-fire too.

[General Battuta]

Well...this assertion is true for players, but in a way it's disproven by the AI, who don't need to lock at all and can even perform off-boresight bomb launches.

I did suggest rapid-fire too.

uberbomber glitch 

[NGTM-1R]

uberbomber glitch 

The Ursa shoals laugh at your uberbomber!

[General Battuta]

The uberbomber glitch works as well on Ursas as anything else.

The problem with Ursas is they're deathtraps.

[Droid803]

Yeah they're basically target practice for any fighter (or hell, even other bombers).
Not very good target practice at that, since they can't even try to avoid your fire properly.

[Snail]

Yeah they're basically target practice for any fighter (or hell, even other bombers).
Not very good target practice at that, since they can't even try to avoid your fire properly.

Play Pre-Emptive NTF Strike. You will never look upon an Ursa the same way again.

[NGTM-1R]

The uberbomber glitch works as well on Ursas as anything else.

The problem with Ursas is they're deathtraps.

Nah, there was another spawn-ship glitch Kara exploited for Grizzly Bearbaiting to create huge swarms of them.

[General Battuta]

The uberbomber glitch works as well on Ursas as anything else.

The problem with Ursas is they're deathtraps.

Nah, there was another spawn-ship glitch Kara exploited for Grizzly Bearbaiting to create huge swarms of them.

Oh, I remember that. That was awesome.

Yeah they're basically target practice for any fighter (or hell, even other bombers).
Not very good target practice at that, since they can't even try to avoid your fire properly.

Play Pre-Emptive NTF Strike. You will never look upon an Ursa the same way again.

Yeah but...no Slammers.

[Woolie Wool]

Node collapses, sleeper ships, I dunno. But it's pretty damn obvious fighting them is not the right option. Sure you can slow them down but that's about it.

Part of military strategy is understanding that there sometimes is no right option. When all options inevitably lead to defeat, the option you choose will be the one that delays total defeat for the longest period of time. Any sensible commander-in-chief would fight the Shivans to the last man, even if he knew the GTVA was doomed, just to hang on a little longer, as happened in most historical wars of annihilation. When the enemy offers you no terms and no quarter, what else are you going to do?

The Shivans are coming. They do not respond to diplomatic overtures. They do not have any cultural weakness. They do not take prisoners. You are going to die. Would you like to die now, or die later? Also, remember that anything the GTVA is technologically capable of is well within the reach of the Shivans. The Shivans could probably just cruise on for years and years to attack human strongholds at sublight speed if it came down to it. Time dilation would make it easier for them than you'd think.