Poll

Self-explanatory. Choose which is probably the most effective anti-fighter/bomber weapon you can mount on a warship.

Anti-fighter beams
39 (51.3%)
Kaysers
7 (9.2%)
Circe, Maxim combo
4 (5.3%)
Circe, flak combo
7 (9.2%)
Trebuchets
11 (14.5%)
Cluster missiles
2 (2.6%)
Fighterkillers
2 (2.6%)
Swarm missiles
2 (2.6%)
Dumbfire missiles
1 (1.3%)
Heat-seeking missiles
1 (1.3%)

Total Members Voted: 76

Author Topic: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible  (Read 12714 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
My canon is better than V canon and supercedes it!

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
My canon is better than V canon and supercedes it!

Ban Battuta.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
My canon is better than V canon and supercedes it!

Ban Battuta.

i AM the law



Nolikethis

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUWWWWWWWWW WWWWW
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • Global Moderator
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
Bored now.
Let there be light
Let there be moon
Let there be stars and let there be you
Let there be monsters and let there be pain
Let us begin to feel again
--Devin Townsend, Genesis

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUWWWWWWWWW WWWWW

you BETRAYED it!

Bored now.

I don't think that's necessary.

 

Offline Qent

  • 29
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
:shaking: I want my Sathanas-launcher turret now!

 :drevil:


My cannon is bigger than your canon.

Dragging on-topic to avoid a lock and editing after the fact to kinda make sense: Morning Star + Maxim is okay. Morning Star + Maxim + Prom S doesn't work because the turret aims the Prom S and misses on the other two. I forget ATM whether I had to give the turret (empty) secondary banks to make the primaries fire simultaneously, but the Prom has to go in the first bank because it has the shortest range.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 08:56:20 am by Qent »

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
My cannon is bigger than your canon.

I mean, I know you're right, there's that position that what you see in the games IS the canon, but...I just don't buy the random turret refire delay, it's so eeeeeeeeh.

 

Offline Dilmah G

  • Failed juggling
  • 211
  • The Token "G" of HLP
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
Loading ammunition into the weapons? Accounting for fluctuations in the ships' powergrid? The gunner texting his mate about the cricket?

Who knows?

* Dilmah G bows to the canon.
Trendy Lefty. Good music from a good friend of mine.

Freespace Rap: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,62924.0.html

The Fighter Pilot Series: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=72431.msg1431423#msg1431423

The word 'Yo' is only ever to be used as a singular greeting.
It is considered an insult to destroy a perfectly acceptable greeting by misuse. A 'Yo-Yo' is a toy spun from the index finger by small children and enthusiasts,
any such use as a greeting will result in prompt reprimand by any member of the 'African-American' or 'Sri-Lankans-who-think-they're-black' community

Fury`: if General Krav Maga wouldn't be enough, beating up 16 teenagers is going to get me into jail :p /
BlackMan: Maybe if you turned into pedobear you'd be more of a threat

 

Offline Qent

  • 29
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
My cannon is bigger than your canon.

I mean, I know you're right, there's that position that what you see in the games IS the canon, but...I just don't buy the random turret refire delay, it's so eeeeeeeeh.
Oh well as long as it's "Random delays are stupid" and not "It's supposed to be that 'cause that's how it looks in the table," I have no complaints. Except that IMBC beams look better when they're out of the sink.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
Bored now.

Frankly that scene creeped the hell out of me when I first saw it long ago, so I bow to your Vampire-Willow-quoting skillz.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • Minecraft
    • FLAMES OF WAR
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
Let's not forget that the same weapon are sometimes mounted on larger ships and have the same fire delay. And a large ship should have power to spare.
Large non-warships like the Poseidon could be considered to have small turrets. The Mentu I dunno, but it's already weird given the tech description. I can't think of any other examples that would support that. Oh, Shivans maybe. But their primaries already have a pretty low ROF IIRC, so the random delay is less significant.

Faustus for example. I'm sure there's more if I check.
Fact-of-matter: doesn't matter on what capship you put a weapon..it will have a smaller fire delay. It's part of gameplay mechanics design for balance. Hence, it has little to do with the actual setting.


Quote
Let's also not forget that sentry guns have no need for large engines, cockpit or life support and all reactor output is for the guns (no engines and shields). So even if sentry guns are smaller than fighter, their weapons should be just as deadly, if not MORE deadly.
Sentry guns need to be cheap because they're disposable mines. Stronger weapons might give them enough survivability to be cost-effective, but I'm guessing not. I still think it's reasonable that sentry guns mount toned-down versions of standard fighter weapons.

The "standard" fighter weapon is the weakest weapon available..and then you want to put a even poorer version of that? It would be like the US deploying sentry guns with 9mm pistols.
Desposable is useless if it's ineffective.
Nobody dies as a virgin - the life ****s us all!

You're a wrongularity from which no right can escape!

 

Offline Qent

  • 29
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
Let's not forget that the same weapon are sometimes mounted on larger ships and have the same fire delay. And a large ship should have power to spare.
Large non-warships like the Poseidon could be considered to have small turrets. The Mentu I dunno, but it's already weird given the tech description. I can't think of any other examples that would support that. Oh, Shivans maybe. But their primaries already have a pretty low ROF IIRC, so the random delay is less significant.

Faustus for example. I'm sure there's more if I check.
Fact-of-matter: doesn't matter on what capship you put a weapon..it will have a smaller fire delay. It's part of gameplay mechanics design for balance. Hence, it has little to do with the actual setting.
In the actual setting, warships only rarely mount fighter weapons. It makes no sense to talk about capship-mounted Maxims in the Retail campaign, because there are none. You could FRED some in, but why would you put miniature fighter weapons on a warship turret?


Quote
Let's also not forget that sentry guns have no need for large engines, cockpit or life support and all reactor output is for the guns (no engines and shields). So even if sentry guns are smaller than fighter, their weapons should be just as deadly, if not MORE deadly.
Sentry guns need to be cheap because they're disposable mines. Stronger weapons might give them enough survivability to be cost-effective, but I'm guessing not. I still think it's reasonable that sentry guns mount toned-down versions of standard fighter weapons.

The "standard" fighter weapon is the weakest weapon available..and then you want to put a even poorer version of that? It would be like the US deploying sentry guns with 9mm pistols.
Desposable is useless if it's ineffective.
Fighter weapons are some of the most powerful "laser"-type weapons available. Compare the Subach to the Shivan Megafunk Laser. What's more, fighters fire 2-6 at a time, versus 1 for typical turrets.

Okay, so maybe one can write that off as "balance," and fighter weapons really are weak. We still know nothing about their cost or the hypothetical cost of a smaller version. It remains that sentry guns in FreeSpace can only be for deterring lightly- or unarmed enemies or distracting them while your own fighters attack. "Mini" Subachs can do both of these. So how much can you save by using small guns?

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
Where the heck does this 'mini' thing come from? Fighter weapon models are so tiny that you could easily put them on capship turrets.

 

Offline Qent

  • 29
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
"Mini" comes from TrashMan didn't think there was a plausible explanation for fighter weapons firing slower from turrets. "FREDding them onto turrets represents a related but different weapon" seems like a plausible explanation to me.
What possible sensible reason can there be?
That all turret-mounted fight weapons are actually smaller variants of the weapons that you use, because they're designed to be mounted on the Alastor's teensy turrets with a tiny but long-lasting power supply. It's a reason, and it's relatively simple and consistent with gameplay.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
But then why do they put these crappy blobs on ships instead of the fighter guns that would do so much betterrrrrr

 

Offline Qent

  • 29
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
I don't knowwwwww but if the random delay is .5s on average (which I've been assuming forever I don't know why) then blobs do way more hull damage than fighter guns.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
Well, right, but if the delay is a function of them using these, like, mini-fighter-guns, but the turrets have the room for the real guns, just put on the real guns darn it, and also if warships don't have the power/heatsinks/mojo whatever to mount the real fighter guns why even build them be

oh heck, we're just being silly at this point.

 

Offline Qent

  • 29
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
wat

the whole point is you don't put them on warships, you put them on sentry guns (because low cost), bomber turrets (because low power), and freighters, AWACSes and stuff (because low everything).

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
Oh, I thought the mini-fighterguns were explaining why the turret ROF was randomly lower than the fighter-issue versions, even on big ships, or the Ursa's turret, or whatever.