[NGTM-1R]

And do they actually change up their tactics that much? We don't really know that.

[Aesaar]

It's still important for bombers to be able to destroy them when allied warships can't get to them. Otherwise you have the possibility of a damaged enemy corvette fleeing and surviving because no warships can chase it down and no strikecraft can finish it off.

And that's what bombs are for.  Oh, they can be intercepted, sure, but they still work pretty reliably.  I'll remind you that the UEF don't use Redeemers to deliver killing blows either, hence why they still carry a bunch of bombs. 

Durgas use Redeemers the same way GTVA bombers use Maxims: soften up the target before delivering the bombs (the things meant to do the real damage).

Of course. I was just pointing out why the Maxim's inability to destroy capships is a serious flaw.

No it isn't.  The Maxim does exactly what it's built to do, and GTVA bomber doctrine does not require it to do more.

[General Battuta]

A lot of definitive statements here on things not really pinned down by canon information :colbert:

[Apollo]

Post split into two because of how goddamn long It would be.

The Shivans constantly switch up their tactics. In a hypothetical Third Great War they might care a lot more about the preservation of their warships.

Does the GTVA know this?

No, but it doesn't matter. I'm talking about what they should do, not what makes the most sense from their limited perspective.

It's still important for bombers to be able to destroy them when allied warships can't get to them. Otherwise you have the possibility of a damaged enemy corvette fleeing and surviving because no warships can chase it down and no strikecraft can finish it off.

And that's what bombs are for.  Oh, they can be intercepted, sure, but they still work pretty reliably.  I'll remind you that the UEF don't use Redeemers to deliver killing blows either, hence why they still carry a bunch of bombs. 

Durgas use Redeemers the same way GTVA bombers use Maxims: soften up the target before delivering the bombs (the things meant to do the real damage).

Of course. I was just pointing out why the Maxim's inability to destroy capships is a serious flaw.

No it isn't.  The Maxim does exactly what it's built to do, and GTVA bomber doctrine does not require it to do more.

A quad-bank of Maxims does as much hull damage in six seconds as a pair of Cyclops while being far, far more ammunition-efficient and having immunity to interception. A six-bank of Maxims hits as hard as a Cyclops every two seconds, and out-damages a Helios every seven. An eight-bank slightly out-damages a Helios every five seconds.

A weapon with equivalent hull damage and the ability to destroy capital ships could, given a bomber with a four to six-point gunbank and a powerful enough reactor to fire them continuously, be used for devastating long-range assaults that would put a squadron of Cyclops-toting Medusas to shame. A bomber specifically designed for this purpose could have small secondary bays but a single primary bank with as many of this weapon as it could possibly carry while still firing steadily and having good durability.

I imagine you'd end up sacrificing some of the Maxim's ammo-efficiency, but it would be worth it so long as a bank could carry several thousand rounds.

[Apollo]

And do they actually change up their tactics that much? We don't really know that.

Well, from FS1 to FS2 they gained flak guns, beams on all their warships, a more warship-centric style of combat, and their famous overemphasis on forward firepower. That's a pretty big difference both in terms of technology and tactics.

A lot of definitive statements here on things not really pinned down by canon information :colbert:

Like what?

[General Battuta]

Post split into two because of how goddamn long It would be.

The Shivans constantly switch up their tactics. In a hypothetical Third Great War they might care a lot more about the preservation of their warships.

Does the GTVA know this?

No, but it doesn't matter. I'm talking about what they should do, not what makes the most sense from their limited perspective.

It's still important for bombers to be able to destroy them when allied warships can't get to them. Otherwise you have the possibility of a damaged enemy corvette fleeing and surviving because no warships can chase it down and no strikecraft can finish it off.

And that's what bombs are for.  Oh, they can be intercepted, sure, but they still work pretty reliably.  I'll remind you that the UEF don't use Redeemers to deliver killing blows either, hence why they still carry a bunch of bombs. 

Durgas use Redeemers the same way GTVA bombers use Maxims: soften up the target before delivering the bombs (the things meant to do the real damage).

Of course. I was just pointing out why the Maxim's inability to destroy capships is a serious flaw.

No it isn't.  The Maxim does exactly what it's built to do, and GTVA bomber doctrine does not require it to do more.

A quad-bank of Maxims does as much hull damage in six seconds as a pair of Cyclops while being far, far more ammunition-efficient and having immunity to interception.

Twelve seconds, not six. All your time estimates are actually probably off since I doubt you're accounting for the shockwave damage (which doubles the warhead's impact or something like that; maybe more than doubles).

[##UnknownPlayer##]

Also referring to direct table values doesn't make a terrific amount of sense, since there's supposed to be *things* going on which aren't necessarily calculated by the simulation. I'd say it's safe to assume that Maxim's aren't ever expected to start killing capships.

[Aesaar]

A quad-bank of Maxims does as much hull damage in six seconds as a pair of Cyclops while being far, far more ammunition-efficient and having immunity to interception. A six-bank of Maxims hits as hard as a Cyclops every two seconds, and out-damages a Helios every seven. An eight-bank slightly out-damages a Helios every five seconds.

A weapon with equivalent hull damage and the ability to destroy capital ships could, given a bomber with a four to six-point gunbank and a powerful enough reactor to fire them continuously, be used for devastating long-range assaults that would put a squadron of Cyclops-toting Medusas to shame. A bomber specifically designed for this purpose could have small secondary bays but a single primary bank with as many of this weapon as it could possibly carry while still firing steadily and having good durability.

I imagine you'd end up sacrificing some of the Maxim's ammo-efficiency, but it would be worth it so long as a bank could carry several thousand rounds.

And a Vajra does more sustained damage than a BBlue, but that doesn't actually make it a better anti-capital weapon, even damage-wise.  Just because the tables show the Maxims or the Redeemers or whatever do more damage than the bombs doesn't mean that they're actually better. 

If it did, then the Vajradhara wouldn't bother carrying bombs.  A lot of things can't be represented by the tables.

[General Battuta]

No, I disagree with that reasoning pretty much entirely. As much as possible the game is the universe.

[CT27]

No it isn't.  The Maxim does exactly what it's built to do, and GTVA bomber doctrine does not require it to do more.

The question is, would it benefit the GTVA to change their doctrine (or at least somewhat modify it)?

[Apollo]

Post split into two because of how goddamn long It would be.

The Shivans constantly switch up their tactics. In a hypothetical Third Great War they might care a lot more about the preservation of their warships.

Does the GTVA know this?

No, but it doesn't matter. I'm talking about what they should do, not what makes the most sense from their limited perspective.

It's still important for bombers to be able to destroy them when allied warships can't get to them. Otherwise you have the possibility of a damaged enemy corvette fleeing and surviving because no warships can chase it down and no strikecraft can finish it off.

And that's what bombs are for.  Oh, they can be intercepted, sure, but they still work pretty reliably.  I'll remind you that the UEF don't use Redeemers to deliver killing blows either, hence why they still carry a bunch of bombs. 

Durgas use Redeemers the same way GTVA bombers use Maxims: soften up the target before delivering the bombs (the things meant to do the real damage).

Of course. I was just pointing out why the Maxim's inability to destroy capships is a serious flaw.

No it isn't.  The Maxim does exactly what it's built to do, and GTVA bomber doctrine does not require it to do more.

A quad-bank of Maxims does as much hull damage in six seconds as a pair of Cyclops while being far, far more ammunition-efficient and having immunity to interception.

Twelve seconds, not six. All your time estimates are actually probably off since I doubt you're accounting for the shockwave damage (which doubles the warhead's impact or something like that; maybe more than doubles).

Alright, I'll grant you that. Still, that's enough firepower for a six-bomber wing with six-gunpoint banks of this hypothetical weapon to take down an Orion or similarly armored ship in 16.awholebunchofdecimals seconds. That's more anti-warship firepower than a Chimera corvette for far less cost.

[General Battuta]

Really? 16 seconds to kill a ship with more than a million effective hitpoints? I somehow doubt that.

[Apollo]

Really? 16 seconds to kill a ship with more than a million effective hitpoints? I somehow doubt that.

That's without factoring in all of that situational adaptive armor. Unless you've added a ton more armor classes, a Cyclops torpedo would be affected in the same way.

Or, are you telling me that the Orion by default has that amount of effective hit points? That would mean it could survive two salvos from a Sathanas.

[General Battuta]

A Cyclops torpedo actually isn't affected in nearly the same way as most of the armor classes don't reduce shockwave damage (which actually composes a significant fraction, maybe better than half, of a Cyclop's damage).

[Aesaar]

CT27: Would it?  It's added logistical concerns for a weapon that would require a dedicated hull, meaning it isn't going to be used that often, and it's dead weight if you don't have any of those hulls.  Is it worthwhile?  Many possible opinions, and I expect that given the current conflict, this debate might very well be going on between GTVA military officials.

[Flak]

I think the Maxim deals reduced damage to larger capships, so for corvettes and bigger, it serves more as an anti turret weapon than for dealing damage. The Vajra and Redeemer don't have that problem though.

Why UEF 'Bombers' still need to carry bombs despite the effective sustained damage of their Vajra and Redeemer primaries? Well, it is because their effective way of dealing damage is through 'Death of A Thousand Cuts', so this number is only effective when the bomber fires continuously at the target without getting distracted by other threats. While on paper they have higher sustained damage than bombs, they lacks the bombs' burst damage capability. Of course it also adds to their damage since both the primaries and the bombs can be fired simultaneously.

[CT27]

(on a lighter note, thanks guys for helping my thread crack 1K posts )


On topic, here's a thought I had:  even assuming switching GTVA bomber doctrine to something more akin to the UEF was the "correct" idea, maybe one of the reasons it shouldn't be done right now is that it would be too expensive and long to do so? 

[qwadtep]

I think that in an ideal simulation, the high-penetration Maxim would be used to compromise armor and allow a bomb to be lobbed inside the target's squishy insides.

[Qent]

In an ideal simulation, I would expect those squishy insides to comprise even more armor, layers of shields, autorepair systems, and the like.

[Klaustrophobia]

for everyone who is drowning in tables right now, go load up a mission in-game with a cap ship, hammer it with maxims (or whatever your weapon of interest is) and watch how fast the hull goes down.  also take note of all other effects, such as your survivability while blasting away and your energy reserves.