Aight, more hate against bomber craft.
What about if (options, much like poll, just bigger)
1. Re-work of the bomber guns, several suggestions have been mentioend in the other haet topicz. Especially SNAC removal, SNAC change into energy gun, SNAC being ammo based, new working torpedoes, capital ship shield decrease or removal, you name it.
2. One of my totally silly ideas - make bombers more starlancer style. Two to five times bigger, huge, cumbersome, slow, not agile craft, maybe with powerful thrusters that would take up core energy much like cruise and would only last as long as the energy is there. Apart from being big, theyd have mean torpedoes or missiles, and given their size and turret steering, point defense guns.
Whole idea is to have bombers that - come against pinned capital ship, fire ordnance, pull back (thrusters) and repeat, from distance. At short range, BS would make them totally dead as they are big n slow, for long range your most popular sentence - get escorts. Then, fighters would have to be on guard for the bombers, intercept them, catch torpedoes, you name it. No more SNAC OP talk, torps that do FAR larger damage, btu are slow and really visible.
Hate me please.
SNAC is a Cruiserclass damage Gun that "magicaly" only needs Fighterclass Energy.
It makes Bombers change theyr role to "top-level predator" instead of special anticapital.
Either you delete/massivly nerf the SNAC or you boost good as EVERY other vessels in FL. So...
#Delete SNAC.
#Give Bombers a new special shieldbuster Torpedo class.
#Change amunition to 35 (because smal Bomber carrying a warehouse of 70 Torpedo big as 1/10 size of the Bomber itself is also total absurd (as SNAC stats))
Result: A Bomber that fits role/stats of a Bomber. (Big Capitals are helpless against Bombers (just like now but not "forever") but the Bomber itself is helpless with Fighters at its butt (can only run away)).
what you propose in part 2 - is basicly ( or so it seems ) a different kind of gunboat. - although 5 times bigger might actually be a medium sized cruiser.
the ideas as such are not bad - but are not quite a revision of the bombers as they are now ( snubs ) - but rather a completely different shiptype.
a different idea is :
- make cruisers to battleships invulnerable to snub weapons ( SNAC included )
- now that cannon got rid of the shaking - we could ( in theory ) remove capship shields - and hundredfold their armour
- add specific "weak spots" to each capital ship - in logical places - so that some really are weaker due to more exposed weak spots than others. ( after all - the death star was not destroyed by shooting a torpedo somewhere at its hull - but only by shooting it at one specific spot )
effect:
- capships hurt capships by pounding their hull - no change there
- bombers are support craft that must not be underestimated - they pose little thread - until they line up a good shot at a weak spot - and end the combat in like 2-3 hits
result:
- a bomber would be able to kill a battleship MUCH faster than a battleship can do - but only when it hits the weak spot
- in practice - a bomber is a good support craft that definitely adds to the advantage of a side - but it is not really doing it all by its own
- bombers alone attacking a battleship need quite some skill and KNOWLEDGE of the weakspot to be successful. - so someone that is amazing vs. a spyglass doesn t need to be amazing vs. an outcast dread either.
problems:
- capships spin too easily so that weak spots could be protected too easily
:
i know about the discussion about comparing guns and weapons x-class.... and you can really compare them - but you need to compare the following :
- damage
- range ( consider the relative momentum - so a projectile can travel at the written speed+the ships speed )
- projectile speed ( also again - consider the momentum - so a projectile can travel at the written speed+the ships speed )
- how many PERCENT of the full energy pool are required to fire it ( i think a bomber and a light cruiser use around similar amounts of energy in percent for a LM )
- how long does it take for the ship to replenish that amount ( can t say which ship replenishes faster - don t have a cruiser )
- what other weapons does the ship have to fight except the heavy cannon
when you take those points into account, you can easily compare fighter vs. battleship weapons regardless of the different scaling.
Well, maybe add some sort of new shiptype, SHF bomber class? NEarly a gunboat, just slower and less agile. Regular bombers would have to hit the weak spot, the new class could just poound the big butt torpedo at the hull for the effect, splash radius could hurt the spots in this occasion.
Also, make caps much less agile, so they can get hurt.
I like yer ideas, think there could be middle way to rework it properly.
actually - i think that the typical "fighter bomber" that many bomberpilots refer to ... is rather a SHF
- characteristic is a single heavy weapon - and a CHOICE between a CD or a SNAC
while a "bomber" might rather be a specialized gunboat / torpedoboat. - what we must consider however is that such a ship - due to the great weaknesses it would gain ... might become a lot more powerful than the current bombertype.
personally - i d like to keep bombers ( or rather make bombers ) a support craft.
a battleship with 1 VHF vs. a battleship with 1 bomber should be quite an interesting fight. - now - you can add 1 turret that does 135k damage each 20 seconds to the opponent - which is rather dull.
the idea with the weak spots is something i find exciting - cause it gives those big ships more ways to gain characteristic features. - mainly cause the battleship type of ships varies in size and shape more than any other ship.
edit:
the problem starts when we count ships like gunboats in. - those would make disgustingly short work of something slow and large that is only equipped to fight BIG ships. ( and by that - i mean - bomberpilots would feel the same "helpless" feeling that some battleships feel now - with the only option to die or retreat )
Did you really need to make another thread about the SNAC when we already have two active ones?
' Wrote:actually - i think that the typical "fighter bomber" that many bomberpilots refer to ... is rather a SHF
- characteristic is a single heavy weapon - and a CHOICE between a CD or a SNAC
while a "bomber" might rather be a specialized gunboat / torpedoboat. - what we must consider however is that such a ship - due to the great weaknesses it would gain ... might become a lot more powerful than the current bombertype.
personally - i d like to keep bombers ( or rather make bombers ) a support craft.
a battleship with 1 VHF vs. a battleship with 1 bomber should be quite an interesting fight. - now - you can add 1 turret that does 135k damage each 20 seconds to the opponent - which is rather dull.
the idea with the weak spots is something i find exciting - cause it gives those big ships more ways to gain characteristic features. - mainly cause the battleship type of ships varies in size and shape more than any other ship.
edit:
the problem starts when we count ships like gunboats in. - those would make disgustingly short work of something slow and large that is only equipped to fight BIG ships. ( and by that - i mean - bomberpilots would feel the same "helpless" feeling that some battleships feel now - with the only option to die or retreat )
Yeah, I agree that bombers should be support craft, with the light / medium / heavy types, balancing armor, agility and firepower to properly separate them. Gunboats might be problem for the bombers, but again, ill point to my superthruster thing, which would enable bomber to quickly gain distance, but only the heaviest ones. Really , gunboats should be destroyers of sort, screening craft, thus anti-bomber defense. And with your proposal of weak spots, battleship can sacrifice two slots for BS missiles to hurt the gunboats now, can it?
Weak spot idea is ossim, and in bigger fights, emphasis would lay not on the primary guns, but on ability to keep enemy support craft at bay.
' Wrote:Did you really need to make another thread about the SNAC when we already have two active ones?
Read description. Its not about SNAC only. Rather not even about it at all.
for Jinx:
I believe you brought up idea once to divide bombers into classes, light with CD and weak torpedo / emp gun, medium with somehow boosted variants and heavy ones with ossim torpedoes, point defense guns. Hell for defense against gunboats we could add soem guns for the bombers, since if such change would happen, no SNAC would mean reign of gunboats, so cut that one down a bit.
They just need to get rid of the high damage energy weapons and find a workaround for the torpedo-shield bug.
I wouldnt mind seeing capital ship weaponry change to something similar, either. Personally I always liked the idea of capship-to-capship torpedo/missile combat over the energy weapon barrages we have now. Make it more like submarine warfare that takes place at long distances, and just leave some point defense weaponry (aka capship solaris turrets) to deal with close-range attackers and give a chance to destroy incoming capital weaponry.
Here's how I always thought things should work in regards to capships/bombers/fighters:
Bombers
-Attack capital ships from long ranges (2-5k) using high yield torpedoes
-Can carry 3-5 bomber torpedo launchers, allowing for chain firing or volley firing
-Limited defensive or offensive weaponry other than torpedoes
Gunboats
-Slower and less manuverable than bombers
-Fast enough to avoid capship torpedoes
-Can carry 1-2 gunboat torpedo launchers, allowing limited bomber-style attacks against larger capships
-Carry 2-4 point defense weapons to fend off fighters or attack bombers
Cruisers
-Thrusters allow cruisers to evade battleship torpedoes
-Can carry 2-4 cruiser torpedo launchers for use against other cruisers and battleships
-Carry 4-6 point defense weapons to fend off fighters or bombers and destroy incoming torpedoes
Battleships
-No thrusters, cannot out-run enemy capship or bomber torpedoes
-Carry 4-6 battleship torpedo launchers for use against cruisers and battleships
-Carry 6-10 point defense weapons to fend off fighters or bombers and destroy incoming torpedoes
Fighters
-Designed to destroy bombers and gunboats with light weaponry
-Can intercept bomber or capship torpedoes and destroy them to defend larger allied ships
Basically right now everyone travels what, 80m/s without thrusters? So let's change that to:
Fighters: 90m/s without thrusters, 180m/s with thrusters
Bombers: 80m/s without thrusters, 160m/s with thrusters
Gunboats: 70m/s without thrusters, 140m/s with thrusters
Cruisers: 60m/s without thrusters, 120m/s with thrusters
Battleships: 50m/s without thrusters, 100m/s with thrusters
Bomber Torpedoes: 200m/s
Gunboat Torpedoes: 140m/s
Cruiser Torpedoes: 130m/s
Battleship Torpedoes: 110m/s
Battleships cant out run anything. Cruisers can outrun battleship torpedoes but nothing else. Gunboats can outrun cruiser and battleship torpedoes, but nothing else.
The number of torpedo launchers on capital ships means they'll be fired in volleys. You can use point defense weapons to destroy incoming torpedoes, but the chances of destroying 4+ torpedoes before they impact would be relatively low, so capship to capship battles become a war of attrition.
ID still add some regular guns for capships. Volleys are volleys, or even ammo based heavy ordnance. That would be fun.
FIRE A BROADSIDE!
' Wrote:ID still add some regular guns for capships. Volleys are volleys, or even ammo based heavy ordnance. That would be fun.
FIRE A BROADSIDE!
You can do that with torpedoes =P
World War 2 destroyer-class naval ships had arrays of torpedo tubes that could be rotated to fire off either the port or starboard side of the ship, and a common tactic against larger opposing warships was doing a high speed broadside from a distance using those torpedoes.