[SaltyWaffles]

i think most people greatly overestimate trebs.  they aren't automatic kills.  they're not even particularly likely kills, except maybe against bombers (that the UEF doesn't frequently field, and almost certainly not in a fashion that would be vulnerable to a dedicated treb strike).  fighters can rather easily dodge them.  if there's cover (and the pilots aren't idiots), there is ZERO chance of a kill.

Trebs aren't a guaranteed kill by any means, no, but they ARE a gauranteed harassment and standoff tool. Providing fighter cover is difficult when you have to dodge staggered Treb shots at the same time. Similarly, Trebs being present all over in the battlefield means that whenever a bomber IS deployed, it's got to deal with the major threat of Treb spam.

---

As far as spam against warships, Trebs are decent, but far less effective against Federation warships than on Tev warships (especially the Capellan era ones). Still, correctly applied, you can reliably snipe one or two of a Karuna's torpedo launchers without too much trouble. Picking away at the point defenses also helps, though I think going for the engines is probably a more effective tactic (damage its tactical capabilities, and potentially strand the ship where it is--serving as a possible lure for other warships, etc.).

Also, remember that an increasing number of UEF pilots are fresh meat--so the Trebuchet would probably do better than you might think as an anti-fighter weapon.

Honestly, in most circumstances I'd think a couple wings of Artemis bombers would be much more threatening when armed with tons of Trebuchets rather than Cyclops. Reasoning being that it provides consistent anti-subsystem capability, stretches enemy fighter cover very thinly (five kilometers in any direction, simultaneously...), and deals more reliable (if less overall) hull damage over time. Trebs can also be dumbfired up close, in the odd circumstance where that'd be useful over normal firing from kilometers away.

[CT27]

:/ You know what he means.

My apologies, I meant Vishnan/Shivan intervention.  I'll be sure to use the right terminology from now on.

[Apollo]

i think most people greatly overestimate trebs.  they aren't automatic kills.  they're not even particularly likely kills, except maybe against bombers (that the UEF doesn't frequently field, and almost certainly not in a fashion that would be vulnerable to a dedicated treb strike).  fighters can rather easily dodge them.  if there's cover (and the pilots aren't idiots), there is ZERO chance of a kill.

Trebs aren't a guaranteed kill by any means, no, but they ARE a gauranteed harassment and standoff tool. Providing fighter cover is difficult when you have to dodge staggered Treb shots at the same time. Similarly, Trebs being present all over in the battlefield means that whenever a bomber IS deployed, it's got to deal with the major threat of Treb spam.

---

As far as spam against warships, Trebs are decent, but far less effective against Federation warships than on Tev warships (especially the Capellan era ones). Still, correctly applied, you can reliably snipe one or two of a Karuna's torpedo launchers without too much trouble. Picking away at the point defenses also helps, though I think going for the engines is probably a more effective tactic (damage its tactical capabilities, and potentially strand the ship where it is--serving as a possible lure for other warships, etc.).

Also, remember that an increasing number of UEF pilots are fresh meat--so the Trebuchet would probably do better than you might think as an anti-fighter weapon.

Honestly, in most circumstances I'd think a couple wings of Artemis bombers would be much more threatening when armed with tons of Trebuchets rather than Cyclops. Reasoning being that it provides consistent anti-subsystem capability, stretches enemy fighter cover very thinly (five kilometers in any direction, simultaneously...), and deals more reliable (if less overall) hull damage over time. Trebs can also be dumbfired up close, in the odd circumstance where that'd be useful over normal firing from kilometers away.

Trebuchets are perfectly capable of wearing down and eventually destroying capital ships, but it takes a ****load of them to accomplish this and BP's adaptive armor makes them less useful against subsystems than the table files suggest. On the other hand, Cyclops-toting Artemis have an unfortunate tendency to get torn apart by Kents and anti-fighter turrets, so that tactic may have some merit.

Ursas would probably be a better choice, though, having much larger secondary bays and a turret. They'd still be even worse at dogfighting than the Artemis, but at those ranges maneuverability isn't so important.

[MatthTheGeek]

Ursas are extremely expensive to produce and maintain, especially the latter, and their survival rate wouldn't be anywhere near high enough to justify using them in place of the Artemis.

The losses of bombers and (most importantly) pilots during bomber strikes is a problem for the Tevs, but Ursas aren't the solution. And until a definitive solution is found (things like SSMs are good steps in that direction, but are still too expensive and too difficult to set up), Artemis strikes will remain a necessary part of the Tev doctrine.

[Apollo]

Ursas are extremely expensive to produce and maintain, especially the latter, and their survival rate wouldn't be anywhere near high enough to justify using them in place of the Artemis.

The losses of bombers and (most importantly) pilots during bomber strikes is a problem for the Tevs, but Ursas aren't the solution. And until a definitive solution is found (things like SSMs are good steps in that direction, but are still too expensive and too difficult to set up), Artemis strikes will remain a necessary part of the Tev doctrine.

What the GTVA really needs is a bomber-mounted beam cannon or mass driver. Anti-warship primaries are what separate the UEF's bombers from the GTVA's ineffective* redshirts.

*Individually speaking, of course.

[SpardaSon21]

The GTVA have a bomber-mounted mass driver weapon.  It is called the Maxim.  Sure, it can't take down shields or capital hulls, but it can certainly defang Karunas, shred Oculus AWACS platforms, and ruin the days of Sanctus captains everywhere.

[Apollo]

The Maxim has nowhere near the firepower of a Redeemer or Vajira. It's good for destroying turrets and gradually bringing down cruisers, but that's about it.

[SpardaSon21]

Redeemer rounds have incredibly expensive antimatter cores and the Vajra is mounted on a platform that's twice the size of an Ursa, so neither of those weapons can be deployed in anything other than small numbers, and any spaceframe losses are incredibly hard to replenish.  On the other hand entire squadrons of Artemis bombers can easily be deployed with quad Maxims and unless there are extreme losses one could easily class them as "acceptable".

[Apollo]

The GTVA uses antimatter too, and if warhead sizes are anything to go by they're much more efficient about it than the UEF. It's not hard to imagine GTVA mass drivers doing comparable damage for far less resources.

Bomber-mounted beam cannons might also be possible, although they'd probably drain a huge amount of energy.

[SpardaSon21]

And said anti-warship cannon would be highly specialized and no doubt tied to a single class of spaceframe, and would have intense logistics requirements, and would be expensive and most likely carried by an expensive and large spacecraft, so all of those are good reasons not to use anti-capital cannons, not when they have Cyclops torpedoes which are very compatible with existing spaceframes and the Tevs can throw enough bombers in the air to do massive Cyclops launches while Maxims go shred subsystems.  The Maxim in fact appears so ammo-efficient that pilots aren't told how many Maxim rounds they have left, so I'm going to assume they carry more than enough for any mission of reasonable duration.  The Tevs can also deploy Maxims in quantities the UEF can't even do a fraction of with their Redeemer and Vajra cannons, so I'm going to say the Maxim is overall the superior weapon for Tev tactical doctrine of ease of logistics and large quantities of high-endurance spaceframes.

[Apollo]

And said anti-warship cannon would be highly specialized and no doubt tied to a single class of spaceframe, and would have intense logistics requirements, and would be expensive and most likely carried by an expensive and large spacecraft, so all of those are good reasons not to use anti-capital cannons, not when they have Cyclops torpedoes which are very compatible with existing spaceframes and the Tevs can throw enough bombers in the air to do massive Cyclops launches while Maxims go shred subsystems.  The Maxim in fact appears so ammo-efficient that pilots aren't told how many Maxim rounds they have left, so I'm going to assume they carry more than enough for any mission of reasonable duration.  The Tevs can also deploy Maxims in quantities the UEF can't even do a fraction of with their Redeemer and Vajra cannons, so I'm going to say the Maxim is overall the superior weapon for Tev tactical doctrine of ease of logistics and large quantities of high-endurance spaceframes.

While the huge volume of plasma they expel would suggest otherwise, beams are actually much efficient than UEF-issue railguns and torpedoes (some of which can be mounted on ships as small as the Durga).

I think it's safe to assume that some of this comes from superior GTVA engineering, considering that two Cyclops deal as much damage as four Apocalypse#Solaris while occupying much less physical space. Similarly, a Supernova has nearly as much power and range as four of them yet is still much smaller.

It would be unwise for the GTVA to adopt the Redeemer, but they could likely make another mass driver with nearly equal power and far greater efficiency.

[General Battuta]

In broad terms GTVA engineering is not up to UEF standards and cannot achieve the same performance.

[General Battuta]

Though it depends on the specific domain.

[Apollo]

In broad terms GTVA engineering is not up to UEF standards and cannot achieve the same performance.

The UEF excels in the area of point-defenses and strikecraft technology, but the GTVA is obviously much better at designing efficient and powerful anti-warship weaponry.

I have no doubt that the UEF's engineering is superior in many respects, but the GTVA is far, far better at specific things.

EDIT: Actually their fighters are a mixed bag because while they are more powerful they also have much lower endurance.

[General Battuta]

Thanks for the update dude, I might have forgotten. 

[MatthTheGeek]

considering that two Cyclops deal as much damage as four Apocalypse#Solaris while occupying much less physical space.

Cyclops also has less than a third of the range. Fuel takes space.

Similarly, a Supernova has nearly as much power and range as four of them yet is still much smaller.

Titans can't fire twelve of them every twenty secs.

[Aesaar]

Titans can't fire twelve of them every twenty secs.

Seems more like an issue with the launcher than with the torpedo itself.

Actually their fighters are a mixed bag because while they are more powerful they also have much lower endurance.

UEF fighters aren't really better than TEI Wave 2 fighters.

[Apollo]

Titans can't fire twelve of them every twenty secs.

Seems more like an issue with the launcher than with the torpedo itself.

Indeed.

Actually their fighters are a mixed bag because while they are more powerful they also have much lower endurance.

UEF fighters aren't really better than TEI Wave 2 fighters.

However, they are much better (in terms of sheer speed and power) than the GTVA's older and more common designs. With its current stats the Izra'il also surpasses the Nyx in that regard.

[-Norbert-]

We know that the TEI wave 2 fighters are brand new and state of the art and yet they are pretty equal to the UEF fighters.

But how old are the UEF fighter designs?
And since they were produced during peacetimes, are they really the absolute best the UEF can build? As the wartime configuarions of the Sanctus and Narayana and the Karuna MK2 show, the UEF capital ships have room to be improved, even without a full re-design. Is it the same for the strikecraft?

[Flak]

So far we only see the Izra'il in action in just one mission (Her Finest Hour), and they only arrive once you have done most of the mission and there are hardly anymore enemy fighters around, so many would probably miss them. 10 racks of Sidhe will definitely ruin all but the toughest fighters.   Also another unique UEF weapon is the Archer which will easily knock out a Chimera out of the game.

The Apocalypse is a torpedo, the Cyclops is a bomb, so they are not exactly equal. The techroom suggest that torpedoes are designed with range and speed in mind instead of warhead yield. The UEF's Cyclops is the Jackhammer which is more powerful, then there is also the Sledgehammer which is even more powerful than the Helios.