[IronBeer]

Surprisingly enough, this is not about problems I have with any particular aspect of FS.

Rather, inspired by a side conversation from the "Atmospheric Fighters" thread, I decided to start thinking about the grievances people had with any of the ships in FS1 and 2. I recall reading an opinion that the Valkyrie was actually not that effective of an interceptor owing to its low durability and secondary payload.

Personally, I have an intense dislike for the Myrmidon- the gun firepower is nice, but the secondary banks (generally speaking) I find lacking, and the mobility is not sufficient to counter for the Mymidon's rather low durability and large target profile. Plus, it doesn't look very Terran.

Also, I really don't like the Boanerges. Given a choice between that and an Ursa, I'll take an Ursa every time. The capability to carry a couple more bombs and a somewhat higher top speed does not excuse the other weaknesses of the design, namely the pathetic gun banks and Mayflower-esque handling. [Edit]: How could I forget the lack of a turret!?

Anybody else want to chime in? Seriously, don't hold back- say what you hate about a given ship, and perhaps offer ideas to improve a design. This doesn't even need to be limited to strike craft, and complaints about all classes are welcome.

[Kolgena]

Artemis gunpoints.
Taurus primary energy reserves.
Losing plot dialogue after running into anything with a Valkyrie
Boanerges. Inferior to the Ursa in every way. (btw, why does the ursa have a kayser turret in Slaying Ravanna? It shouldn't have been released to opeval yet)

As for the myrmidon, it's actually a really decent fighter IMO. dual gunbanks in 4/2 arrangement mean that you can have a damage dealer on the 4 and a specialized weapon on the 2 without sacrificing DPS. This allows for primary fire flexibility that isn't offered on most of anything else. Secondary capacity is pretty horrible though. Tempests are the only real usable missiles on it. Target profile isn't too bad, since I'm not skilled enough to exploit vasudan/pegasus thinness anyways, and it's fast enough to fly intercept (95/130). Oh, and it carries Helios, though that's probably not intentional.

The main problem with the myrmidon is that it's so capable at doing everything that it fails to excel at doing anything. It's like that fighter jet the US commissioned in the Cold War that was multifunctional but sucked a lot for any specific task.

[Aardwolf]

Taurus primary energy reserves.

You mean Tauret.

btw, why does the ursa have a kayser turret in Slaying Ravana?

Fixed typo. And to answer your question: because it's awesome. It also has a Banshee turret in FS1

[Kolgena]

Woohoo, typoes. >.<

The Banshee makes sense though. Both that and the bomber were released to op eval at the same time. Kayser just... doesn't.

[IronBeer]

The Banshee makes sense though. Both that and the bomber were released to op eval at the same time. Kayser just... doesn't.

Upgrade, perhaps? (Realistically, I think we all know the Banshee was simply removed from the tables, but whatever)

[Vrets]

The Orion's lack of point-defense.

Myrmidon's lack of agility.

The Ravana's vulnerable beam turrets.

[Droid803]

The Kayser was released on OpEval for fighters.
The tech description says that doctrine stated it was only for use on bomber (turrets) beforehand or something.

[Klaustrophobia]

the "superior" vasudan engines don't increase speed with increased power

[TopAce]

The Perseus being slower than the Valkyrie.

[Commander Zane]

I've done alright in the Boanerges suprisingly, though some of the things noted here, like the Perseus being slower than the Valkyrie, I think it suits her for having the second missile bank and tougher hull, think about how unbalanced it would be if it had the acceleration, top speed, and afterburner capability of the Valkyrie, with all the other upgrades, I've personally thought the Perseus started off unbalanced to begin with.

The issue with several Vasudan ships not overclocking is solved on a table fix posted a few months back, it also gives the Artemis overclock and makes the D.H. perform better as advertised.

[The E]

The issue with several Vasudan ships not overclocking is solved on a table fix posted a few months back, it also gives the Artemis overclock and makes the D.H. perform better as advertised.

"Perform as advertised", you mean

[Spoon]

What I don't get is why the Ursa has a Kayser turret but cannot have Kayser's in it's primary banks.

I personally have a fierce hatred for the Horus, it's made of paper, has ****ty gunpoints and aside from its speed has nothing going for it.

[headdie]

Horus was a kick ass interceptor in FS1 hence why it is a mediocre to marginal fighter in fs2

as for the kayser debate i tend to run with the designed for bombers explanation along with the fact that if memory serves you only get it when in the elite 70th so have access to special weapons not available to the rest of the fleet (just behind spec ops like the skulls)

for some of the tabling/stats issues especially related to ship speed and over clocking it might be worth looking at the table fix link in my sig for some i have attempted to address.  if you have any suggestions afterwards i will happily look into them i think some other members of the community have done similar work as well

[Commander Zane]

The issue with several Vasudan ships not overclocking is solved on a table fix posted a few months back, it also gives the Artemis overclock and makes the D.H. perform better as advertised.

"Perform as advertised", you mean

What's the difference? It's advertised as performing better.

[Droid803]

You be missing a comma:

"...and makes the D.H. perform better, as advertised".
Then it makes more sense

[Kolgena]

Stealth fighters should be harder to hit than they are currently. If I suck at shooting without a lead indicator at targets beyond 1km, so should enemy AI.
AI needs to use trebs properly without sexp hacks.
AI needs to learn how to spamshoot tempests.

[General Battuta]

Stealth fighters should be harder to hit than they are currently. If I suck at shooting without a lead indicator at targets beyond 1km, so should enemy AI.
AI needs to use trebs properly without sexp hacks.
AI needs to learn how to spamshoot tempests.

Fury AI.

Play Blue Planet, steal the AI.

It can do all that, plus equalize shields believably.

[Kolgena]

I was under the impression that Fury AI would make the game significantly harder?

I can just barely play vanilla campaign on insane, so...

[General Battuta]

I was under the impression that Fury AI would make the game significantly harder?

I can just barely play vanilla campaign on insane, so...

Not tremendously harder, just smarter. Especially if you put it on Very Easy or Easy.

If you can barely play the Vanilla campaign on Insane you'll probably do fine on Fury Medium.

[Kosh]

The Orion's lack of point-defense.

Myrmidon's lack of agility.

The Ravana's vulnerable beam turrets.

That's all there for balance.

I personally have a fierce hatred for the Horus, it's made of paper, has ****ty gunpoints and aside from its speed has nothing going for it.

Not totally, those wide gun points are very well suited for large bombers like the Ursa or the Nephilim, just that it has more trouble with smaller stuff. On the flipside in FS2 it is the only fighter that can easily keep up with the Nahema without having to put more power into your engines or hit your burners.

AI needs to use trebs properly without sexp hacks.

IIRC way back in the day the SCP team did this, but took it out because it made several. The reason is because Basilisks come with Trebuchets (or Pheonix V's if you're playing the FS Port) by default, so they would jump in a few KM away from the transports you were escorting, suddenly launch their trebs and waste your escorts before you even got within range of them.