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 12779 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Shivan Hunter

  • 210
  • FRED needs lambdas!
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
sentry guns with Trebs

 

Offline Droid803

  • Trusted poster of legit stuff
  • 213
  • /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\ Do you want to be a Magical Girl?
    • Skype
    • Steam
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
Trebs suck against anyone who knows how to pilot for ****.
Can't hit anything at close range, so much time to dodge at long range.
They're only good against st00pid AI that fly in a straight-ish line.

I've never been hit by a Treb.
I've been drowned in flak and speared by AAAs more times than I can care to count.
(´・ω・`)
=============================================================

 

Offline Shivan Hunter

  • 210
  • FRED needs lambdas!
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
sentry guns with morningstars and Trebs

 

Offline Droid803

  • Trusted poster of legit stuff
  • 213
  • /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\ Do you want to be a Magical Girl?
    • Skype
    • Steam
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
Ok, that sounds annoying. :P
(´・ω・`)
=============================================================

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • Minecraft
    • FLAMES OF WAR
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
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?

I'm not talking about Maxims (altough canonicly, they have been mounted on a few alastors IIRC). A few larger ship are armed with subacs (Faustus has both those and disruptors).

Again -why would you go with something so weak? A average fighter has 4-6 gun banks, missile banks AND shields.
So why the hell you you put 1 (ONE) gun that's even weaker than that on a sentry gun. Who the hell is it going to deter?

So yes - in stock campaign there have been fighter weapons mounted on capship turrets.




Quote
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.

Exactly..so why a lower ROF version when an enemy fighter already has the number of guns advantage? Why decrease your own firepower even more?


Quote
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?

Saving $$$ can only go up to point. The Army wants cheap and effective. Not cheap and utterly useless. Spending money on sentry guns is sensless if they're so pitiful that they might as well not be there.
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
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).
A Faustus is not a warship.

Weak guns are not the only reason sentries are trash versus fighters. Even with nice weapons, they have no shields, maneuverability, or countermeasures, which means that they will be destroyed, probably by missiles. Like I said before, we don't know how much can be saved by downgrading the guns; it's just one possible reason for putting lame weapons (reactor, armor, etc.) on a sentry.

 

Offline Marcov

  • Chicken Little
  • 29
  • My Sig Is Spam
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
Fighter weapons are useless on capship turrets, because of the exclusion of the "same-turret-cooldown" flag.

Also, true, fighters have a tremendous amount of firepower for their size, compared to capitals. The only problem is if they are skilled enough to take down capships. Capitals have an immense amount of hitpoints, and even if they have a meager amount of anti-fighter guns, they can hold off themselves for a long time due to their said hitpoints. Fighter pilots who aren't skilled enough may either get bombarded to death by the capital's turrets, or they can run away with their hull integrity being 10%.

Plus the actual fact that the real counter for fighters is other fighters, in FS.

Anyway, I really think if the AI could use cluster missles, they could be pretty deadly if mounted on sentry guns.

Quote
Weak guns are not the only reason sentries are trash versus fighters. Even with nice weapons, they have no shields, maneuverability, or countermeasures, which means that they will be destroyed, probably by missiles. Like I said before, we don't know how much can be saved by downgrading the guns; it's just one possible reason for putting lame weapons (reactor, armor, etc.) on a sentry.

Actually, the only thing I think the sentry guns are good at, is annoying Alpha 1; their lasers prevent you from moving everytime they hit you. They serve as a distraction, nothing else (unless you could put some good firepower into them, like said cluster missiles).
With the rapid increase of FS fan-made campaigns, we're giving the GTVA a harder time with more violence and genocide.

~FreeSpace: The Battle of Endor (voice dub)~
Part 1/4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9K9-Y1JBTE
Part 2/4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtQanXDRAXM
Part 3/4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoBLKYt_oG0

Old (original) videos:
Part 1/4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1ygskaoUtE
Part 2/4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0uoPTksBlI

 

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
Fighter weapons are useless on capship turrets, because of the exclusion of the "same-turret-cooldown" flag.

wrong

or at least not the best way to solve it.

Quote
Also, true, fighters have a tremendous amount of firepower for their size, compared to capitals. The only problem is if they are skilled enough to take down capships. Capitals have an immense amount of hitpoints, and even if they have a meager amount of anti-fighter guns, they can hold off themselves for a long time due to their said hitpoints. Fighter pilots who aren't skilled enough may either get bombarded to death by the capital's turrets, or they can run away with their hull integrity being 10%.

Any good multi pilot can single-handedly deturret any capship in the game, fast.

Quote
Plus the actual fact that the real counter for fighters is other fighters, in FS.

Or a warship with real, unhobbled AI (see BP2).

 

Offline StarSlayer

  • 211
  • Men Kaeshi Do
    • Steam
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
Any good multi pilot can single-handedly deturret any capship in the game, fast.

Quote
Plus the actual fact that the real counter for fighters is other fighters, in FS.

Or a warship with real, unhobbled AI (see BP2).

wait wut?  I assume the first statement doesn't apply to the second?
“Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world”

 

Offline SypheDMar

  • 210
  • Student, Volunteer, Savior
    • Minecraft
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
I never really got this thread. Are we talking about retail data or mods included? Mods allow for unlimited possibilities of equal destruction, anyway. So are we going back to retail? And if we are using retail as base (including AI), are we asking what can kill player fighters best or AI fighters?

 

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
Any good multi pilot can single-handedly deturret any capship in the game, fast.

Quote
Plus the actual fact that the real counter for fighters is other fighters, in FS.

Or a warship with real, unhobbled AI (see BP2).

wait wut?  I assume the first statement doesn't apply to the second?


QuantumDelta has taken down a pretty roided out Aeolus from a start position inside its flak envelope. I believe it can still be done.

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • Minecraft
    • FLAMES OF WAR
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
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).
A Faustus is not a warship.

Weak guns are not the only reason sentries are trash versus fighters. Even with nice weapons, they have no shields, maneuverability, or countermeasures, which means that they will be destroyed, probably by missiles. Like I said before, we don't know how much can be saved by downgrading the guns; it's just one possible reason for putting lame weapons (reactor, armor, etc.) on a sentry.

Precisely. Sentry guns already have many disadvantages compared to fighters. Hence, giving them weak guns makes little sense.
Why do people assume that balance decissions = game universe fluff.
That is just flawed thinking.

EDIT: The Faustus is technicly a warship. It's a civilian cruiser designed, modified for military use. Not heavily armored, but it's stil la cruiser, with a cruiser-sized reactor for guns.
Nobody dies as a virgin - the life ****s us all!

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

 

Offline Marcov

  • Chicken Little
  • 29
  • My Sig Is Spam
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
Quote
wrong

or at least not the best way to solve it.

Yes. Put the "same turret cooldown" flag and watch yourself die by the might of Kaysers.

Quote
Any good multi pilot can single-handedly deturret any capship in the game, fast.

That's why I was talking about unskilled pilots. True, an experienced player can easily disable the most dangerous warship singlehandedly, but I was specifically referring to unskilled AI fighters.

Quote
Or a warship with real, unhobbled AI (see BP2).

Look, Battuta. I'm not taking into consideration mod-based references on my point of argument. Hell, you could mod even the Training Laser and make a cruiser take down 50 hapless fighters in less than a minute if you made its firing rate to 0.001 and damage to 50,000 in the editor. You yourself said that it was useless arguing non-canonical, super lasers since it wouldn't be fun anymore.
With the rapid increase of FS fan-made campaigns, we're giving the GTVA a harder time with more violence and genocide.

~FreeSpace: The Battle of Endor (voice dub)~
Part 1/4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9K9-Y1JBTE
Part 2/4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtQanXDRAXM
Part 3/4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoBLKYt_oG0

Old (original) videos:
Part 1/4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1ygskaoUtE
Part 2/4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0uoPTksBlI

 

Offline SypheDMar

  • 210
  • Student, Volunteer, Savior
    • Minecraft
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
I agree with Trashman's take on the gameplay versus fluff thing, but I disagree wiith Faustus being a warship. Science cruiser /= (battle) cruiser. That's like saying a transport's a warship 'cause it carries military personnel. That's like saying a transport's a warship 'cause it carries military personnel. Heck, if you gave TACs engines, they'd be warships, too.

I also agree that we should use retail as a base. Also, when talking about anti-fighter weapons, we should use AI as the variable rather than the player because AI behavior is more/less predictable. I'm not sure where to go from here, however. What difficulty should be set as the standard, and how many turrets and their AI levels can we tweak?

 
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
If it's AI vs AI I'm not sure difficulty really matters.

The answer is still probably AAA though, out of retail.
"Neutrality means that you don't really care, cuz the struggle goes on even when you're not there: Blind and unaware."

"We still believe in all the things that we stood by before,
and after everything we've seen here maybe even more.
I know we're not the only ones, and we were not the first,
and unapologetically we'll stand behind each word."

 

Offline Qent

  • 29
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
I'm going to try to be much clearer about what I am saying.

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).
A Faustus is not a warship.

Weak guns are not the only reason sentries are trash versus fighters. Even with nice weapons, they have no shields, maneuverability, or countermeasures, which means that they will be destroyed, probably by missiles. Like I said before, we don't know how much can be saved by downgrading the guns; it's just one possible reason for putting lame weapons (reactor, armor, etc.) on a sentry.

Precisely. Sentry guns already have many disadvantages compared to fighters.
Right.

Hence, giving them weak guns makes little sense.
No. If the cost of building sentry guns with more gun is greater than the benefit of doing so, then it should not be done. What is the benefit of equipping better weapons? The same number of sentries can defeat more fighters; easily testable in FRED. What is the cost? We have no idea. Is the cost greater than or less than the benefit? We have no idea. Does the GTVA have a good reason to mount fighter-grade weapons on sentry guns? We have no idea, but they didn't do it.

Why do people assume that balance decissions = game universe fluff.
That is just flawed thinking.
Of course I do not assume that balance decisions are always a subset(?) of fluff. But in the case of flak, Alastors, and bomber turrets, the game is perfectly consistent, so I am more open to the possibility that it is not only balance, but also canon in the fluff.

Remember that this whole "mini-laser" discussion is in response to your claim that there can be no plausible explanation for what is obverved in the game except that it is necessary for balance/gameplay reasons:
Why should a weapon have a slower rate of fire if mounted on a ship? What possible sensible reason can there be? There isn't one. There is only balance/gameplay. And that reason doesn't exist in the setting.
I responded with an explanation that is perfectly plausible for Alastor and bomber turrets, less so for large non-combat ships like the Faustus, and pretty flimsy for warships like the Mentu.

EDIT: The Faustus is technicly a warship. It's a civilian cruiser designed, modified for military use. Not heavily armored, but it's stil la cruiser, with a cruiser-sized reactor for guns.
Whatever you call it, it's built for "doing science" not killing things.

 

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
Quote
wrong

or at least not the best way to solve it.

Yes. Put the "same turret cooldown" flag and watch yourself die by the might of Kaysers.

Learn to read, learn to mod and figure out that simply altering AI profiles will do the same job without having to edit any weapons at all.


Quote
Quote
Or a warship with real, unhobbled AI (see BP2).

Look, Battuta. I'm not taking into consideration mod-based references on my point of argument. Hell, you could mod even the Training Laser and make a cruiser take down 50 hapless fighters in less than a minute if you made its firing rate to 0.001 and damage to 50,000 in the editor. You yourself said that it was useless arguing non-canonical, super lasers since it wouldn't be fun anymore.

As far as I'm concerned AI modding to behave realistically is a whole different kettle of soup. Unless you're really going to argue there's a reason that fighters can't make vertical breaks in FS2?

My canon supercedes V canon because it's betterrrrrrrrrrrr
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 10:30:14 am by General Battuta »

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • Minecraft
    • FLAMES OF WAR
Re: Deadliest anti-fighter capital weapon possible
No. If the cost of building sentry guns with more gun is greater than the benefit of doing so, then it should not be done. What is the benefit of equipping better weapons? The same number of sentries can defeat more fighters; easily testable in FRED. What is the cost? We have no idea. Is the cost greater than or less than the benefit? We have no idea. Does the GTVA have a good reason to mount fighter-grade weapons on sentry guns? We have no idea, but they didn't do it.

Well, apparently such weapons aren't terribly expensive, as an average fighter has 4..some have 8..not counting other equipment. Some fighters even have advanced jump drives. And nothing of that is too expensive. Think.The cost of a fighter already outstrips that of any sentry gun by a huge margin (shield, missiles, jump drives, pilot training and pay, etc..) We go back to the issue of effectiveness.
FS2 - gameplay wise - already makes little strategic and economic sense because the player is a fighter pilot, and as such, all game balance is skewed in favor of a fighter.

Why do you try to paint what is obviously a gameplay balance decision as fluff? Sure, you can try and come up with some (however weak) justification for it, but it's ultimatively pointless.
Anything can be justified in one way or another.



Quote
EDIT: The Faustus is technicly a warship. It's a civilian cruiser designed, modified for military use. Not heavily armored, but it's stil la cruiser, with a cruiser-sized reactor for guns.
Whatever you call it, it's built for "doing science" not killing things.

Military things need to defend themselves.
Even a one of those inflatable speedboats is going ot be armed with a regular machinegun, and not some pea-shooter.
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
Quote
wrong

or at least not the best way to solve it.

Yes. Put the "same turret cooldown" flag and watch yourself die by the might of Kaysers.

Learn to read, learn to mod and figure out that simply altering AI profiles will do the same job without having to edit any weapons at all.
Aw, that's not fair. If Marcov's goal were to remove the random delay altogether then it's true, but if it's just for fighter weapons then AI profiles is the wrong way to go.

Quote
Quote
Or a warship with real, unhobbled AI (see BP2).

Look, Battuta. I'm not taking into consideration mod-based references on my point of argument. Hell, you could mod even the Training Laser and make a cruiser take down 50 hapless fighters in less than a minute if you made its firing rate to 0.001 and damage to 50,000 in the editor. You yourself said that it was useless arguing non-canonical, super lasers since it wouldn't be fun anymore.

As far as I'm concerned AI modding to behave realistically is a whole different kettle of soup. Unless you're really going to argue there's a reason that fighters can't make vertical breaks in FS2?

My canon supercedes V canon because it's betterrrrrrrrrrrr
I'll use this as an excuse to mention that the original purpose of this thread was powerful turret configurations using only stock weapons. That should include stock values for AI settings that modify weapon usage.

No. If the cost of building sentry guns with more gun is greater than the benefit of doing so, then it should not be done. What is the benefit of equipping better weapons? The same number of sentries can defeat more fighters; easily testable in FRED. What is the cost? We have no idea. Is the cost greater than or less than the benefit? We have no idea. Does the GTVA have a good reason to mount fighter-grade weapons on sentry guns? We have no idea, but they didn't do it.

Well, apparently such weapons aren't terribly expensive, as an average fighter has 4..some have 8..not counting other equipment. Some fighters even have advanced jump drives. And nothing of that is too expensive. Think.The cost of a fighter already outstrips that of any sentry gun by a huge margin (shield, missiles, jump drives, pilot training and pay, etc..) We go back to the issue of effectiveness.
FS2 - gameplay wise - already makes little strategic and economic sense because the player is a fighter pilot, and as such, all game balance is skewed in favor of a fighter.
Yep, fighters are more expensive than sentry guns. That says nothing about whether it's more economical to arm sentries with better, more expensive guns or cheaper, less effective ones. Not to mention that if sentry guns were cheaper then you could deploy more of them.

Why do you try to paint what is obviously a gameplay balance decision as fluff?
It is not "obviously" a gameplay balance decision. In fact, I'll bet that the random delay actually screwed up balance, creating some extra work for :v:. My guess is that it is a visual effect, because all turrets firing in sync doesn't look too good. If it were a balance thing, it would have been easier to adjust the fire wait directly for capship weapons and the AI classes for turreted fighter weapons.

I paint it as fluff because that is how it is in the game, and I have not seen a convincing argument that it should be different in the universe.

Sure, you can try and come up with some (however weak) justification for it,
It's pretty strong. The same weapon should behave the same regardless of where it is mounted (in FreeSpace with sufficient power and the modular guns that you can put on different ships). The gun on an Alastor acts differently, so it's possible that it's a different weapon.

but it's ultimatively pointless.
Anything can be justified in one way or another.
You said there's no "possible sensible reason" for (e.g.) Alastor Subachs to fire slower than fighter Subachs, so I gave one.

Quote
EDIT: The Faustus is technicly a warship. It's a civilian cruiser designed, modified for military use. Not heavily armored, but it's stil la cruiser, with a cruiser-sized reactor for guns.
Whatever you call it, it's built for "doing science" not killing things.

Military things need to defend themselves.
Even a one of those inflatable speedboats is going ot be armed with a regular machinegun, and not some pea-shooter.
Yes, which is why in FreeSpace they're armed with machineguns (Subachs) instead of howitzers (Terran Turrets or other "big ship" 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
I'll use this as an excuse to mention that the original purpose of this thread was powerful turret configurations using only stock weapons. That should include stock values for AI settings that modify weapon usage.

Yeah, that's definitely fair, but man, I just think the stock AI settings are stupid.

But like Dragon says in the very next post, play on Insane and you get something reasonable (and put a capship on General AI level on Insane and you'll get pretty good performance out of turret-mounted fighter primaries.)
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 02:03:51 pm by General Battuta »