[Mars]

Other than fluff (enhanced sensor package) is it just a very similar replacement for the Myrmidon with a more attractive target profile, or am I missing something.

[General Battuta]

Well as an added tidbit there are a few missions in WiH where destroying Auroras will knock down enemy AI classes a bit.

[NGTM-1R]

It's smaller. That probably counts for a lot when you're worried about how many you can fit on the hanger deck to help you fight off the Shivan hordes.

[ssmit132]

Well as an added tidbit there are a few missions in WiH where destroying Auroras will knock down enemy AI classes a bit.

So Auroras increase the intelligence of GTVA fighters?

[PsychoLandlord]

Isn't the Aurora capable of carrying a wider selection of missiles? Along with all the other benefits mentioned here.

Really, unless they're massively expensive in the fluff, I'm surprised we don't see more Auroras than Myrmidons at this point. Even if the 14th was its first combat deployment (cant remember and not near FS computer,) you would still think that at this point in the war they could have produced a fair amount of Aurora Squadrons to replace the aging Myrm at the front. ELINT/EW craft they may be, they seem to outperform many current GTVA fighter designs. Stripping out the E-war gear for some more armor or a better generator and creating a combat variant seems like a logical conclusion.

[Mars]

I think the Atalantas and Persei both outperform the Aurora in terms of maneuverability, so I'd assume those are what's replacing the Myrmidon, the Atalanta even has an equal amount of firepower. I think the fluff says the Loki is being replaced by the Aurora. The reason why I asked about the Myrmidon in particular is because the Aurora and Myrmidon are very, very similar in terms of performance, but the Aurora is better, mostly because of its size.

They also apparently make the other fighters "smarter" and yes, the Aurora also carries Harpoons! (I'd forgotten about that)

[PsychoLandlord]

They also apparently make the other fighters "smarter" and yes, the Aurora also carries Harpoons! (I'd forgotten about that)

Yet another reason to use more of them, though as I noted above, cost may be a factor there. And even though the Atalanta easily outperforms the Aurora  (as it should,) I generally find the Aurora to make a better interceptor than the Perseus, even with the loss of speed.

Now, I have no idea what the tables look like, so I could just be imagining things, But I've always felt the Aurora to be better armored, shielded, and packing greater reserves of weapon energy than the Perseus, while still boasting comparable maneuverability. IIRC she also carries  a greater supply of missiles a well. Now, If I am right, and these things are true, the Aurora has effectively obsoleted two fighters at once right there, even without factoring in the Elint gear. And  having a wing of Auroras all feeding targeting information and enemy positions to each other during a dogfight must be terrifying for their enemies, assuming the birds (and pilots) can keep up with it.

And this isnt even getting into possibly producing an upgunned Space Superiority variant by utilizing the space left over after stripping out the electronics suite.

[Mars]

Values for Perseus, Aurora, Myrmidon

Rotational Dampening (lower is better):           .35    |         .325          |    .35
Rotation time (in seconds:               3.3, 3.3, 3.3   |  4.5, 4.7, 5.6        |    4.0, 3.7, 5
Hitpoints:                                        265    |          250          |    290
Shields:                                         350     |        360            | 390
Max Primary Energy:                              150.0   |         150.0         |   150.0
Power Output:                                    2.0     |         2.25          |    2.4


When I first saw it in the tables, I didn't believe it; the Aurora seemed like an upgunned Perseus to me too. The Aurora has pretty bad maneuverability for a fighter, worse than the Myrmidon by some measures, and carries the same number of missiles as both the Perseus and Myrmidon. Armored and shielded similarly, same recharge, same everything basically, except that the Myrmidon and Aurora have two more guns, and the Perseus is very small, the Aurora is the size of an Erinyes, and the Myrmidon is the size of a whale.

That rot-damp you see is the delay before a fighter starts to turn (higher numbers make the fighter feel more sluggish, and makes the fighter feel heavier) the rotation time is how long the fighter takes to make a complete turn in the X, Y, and Z axis.  The Aurora has a low rotation damp but a high rotation time, so it feels "light" but its actually pretty sluggish.

[PsychoLandlord]

Wow. So then I guess gameplay wise a player Aurora is better than a Myrm, unless you want to play figher-bomber for some reason.

Perseus has the advantage in speed and maneuverability, though at the expense of guns. Odd that I thought The Aurora had more weapon energy, given it has more gun mounts. Balors

At this point I guess It comes down to whether or not the player will ever get to engage in some sort of E-war style stuff in the future, such as that Tev campaign.

They certainly win out on the AI front though, on account of the buffing of other fighters. Can Multiple Auroras stack their buffs on each other, in a manner similar to the scenario I described earlier?

[Black Wolf]

I thought the Aurora was replacing the Loki?

[Mars]

I think the fluff says the Loki is being replaced by the Aurora.

The reason why I asked about the Myrmidon in particular is because the Aurora and Myrmidon are very, very similar in terms of performance, but the Aurora is better, mostly because of its size.

[-Sara-]

The Aurora replaces the Loki, nothing to do with the Myrmidon. Aurora is a recon which can fill up a number of other secondary functions. It's a scout with teeth, capable of surviving an engagement as opposed to the more vulnerable Loki (which was designed to draw it's strenght from being stealthy initially), we even saw it in AoA. The Myrmidon is more of an aged all rounder.

The Myrmidon was supplemented by the Persues, as the GTVA thought the Persues made a great superiority fighter. The brand new Atalanta is the next-generation fighter which takes over this role as both a superiority fighter and interceptor.


[/quote]

The reason why I asked about the Myrmidon in particular is because the Aurora and Myrmidon are very, very similar in terms of performance, but the Aurora is better, mostly because of its size.

[/quote]

You cannot compare an Aurora to a Myrmidon, with the Aurora being a much more modern fightercraft. If you put it's contemporary the Atalanta next to it then suddenly the Aurora pales in comparison in that role.

[PsychoLandlord]

Makes sense. I assume this is all stuff I missed in the Techroom somewhere?

On a slightly related note, where does the Draco fit into all this? It seems about as dangerous as your average Perseus, maybe a bit faster.

(Again, sorry I cant check myself. Hospitals dont take kindly to desk tops.)

[General Battuta]

The Draco is a true interceptor - with a deep afterburner and a max afterburner velocity of 210 (compared to the Perseus' 140), it's meant to handle situations like high-intensity convoy defense in the later missions of FS2.

[PsychoLandlord]

Holy crap, I didn't realize it was that fast. Does it have reverse thrust like the Kent, or has that become a decidedly UEF thing?

[-Sara-]

No it doesn't as far as I know.

[Scotty]

Wow. So then I guess gameplay wise a player Aurora is better than a Myrm, unless you want to play figher-bomber for some reason.

What?  It's [the Myrm] a fraction of second more sluggish (on par with the Perseus), noticeably more maneuverable, and also noticeably more survivable in both aspects with a boost to energy output as well.  So... the Aurora is smaller, and it can carry the Harpoon, in a time where a Tornado swarm is more likely to kill an enemy fighter (which they can both carry the same amount of).  That's about it (of course, that's not considering purely fluff based reasons like sensor suites and EW).

[General Battuta]

Wow. So then I guess gameplay wise a player Aurora is better than a Myrm, unless you want to play figher-bomber for some reason.

What?  It's [the Myrm] a fraction of second more sluggish (on par with the Perseus), noticeably more maneuverable, and also noticeably more survivable in both aspects with a boost to energy output as well.  So... the Aurora is smaller, and it can carry the Harpoon, in a time where a Tornado swarm is more likely to kill an enemy fighter (which they can both carry the same amount of).  That's about it (of course, that's not considering purely fluff based reasons like sensor suites and EW).

It's not purely fluff, the Aurora has AWACS and can detect stealth and expand sensor range in nebulas and crap.

[PsychoLandlord]

It's not purely fluff, the Aurora has AWACS and can detect stealth and expand sensor range in nebulas and crap.

That. And Harpoons. The Aurora takes the cake this time around, IMO.

EDIT: I should mention I have terrible luck with Tornadoes, which coupled with the low amount of volleys you can carry in comparison to the Harpoon, makes me favor the latter missile.

[Scotty]

It's not purely fluff, the Aurora has AWACS and can detect stealth and expand sensor range in nebulas and crap.

That. And Harpoons. The Aurora takes the cake this time around, IMO.

Tornado > Harpoon.  Takes two or more harpoon double volleys to down most FS fighters, where a single Tornado double volley will splash just about all normal fighters (haven't tried them against the newer GTVA fighters yet).  Add to that a longer range, and more submunitions to increase you chance of not whiffing the shot completely due to CMs.  Against the superior UEF fighters, a higher chance of a one shot kill isn't something to sneeze at.

Oh hey, there's an edit there.  Yes, you get half the shots with Tornados that you do with Harpoons, they do double the damage (per volley for no net loss of damage) at longer range.