The only other large bomber that is not used/usefull is Barghest, and size of that thing calls for extra measures (shield + powerplant, then it would be fun and different). Waran well I don't really know, too ugly for me to dare to test it:)
And no hessian ships don't need to be worse:
1. Loki is already superior to just about any LF around and especially to the vanilla Phantom
2. Odin while being big target (though it has Wrath hitbox) and have not so good dodging, turns really fast and is non-vanilla (yes 99% of my deaths in the Wrath are to mines, just like yesterday?). So as it is now I would consider it balanced towards Titan, though slightly worse than Wrath.
3. Thor is non vanilla as all bombers so it should be balanced especially to the bombers it meets, it is a bigger target than both RH and Corsair one, while having smaller powerplant, but it has faster turning than both and extra turret (RH has it also). The thing that is unfair for me is that it says "based on the RH bomber technology" which kind of implies that it should have same powerplant to me.
So:
Loki - one of the best
Odin - average
Thor - under average, should be upped a bit.
RH cruiser - very good
This way you could anylyze just about any faction:
(so I'll do it cause I think it's fun;)) Outcasts
Scimitair - average
Sabre - very good
Falcata - average to under average (but inferno makes it good)
Dessie - one of the best
Dread + BS - no idea Corsairs -
Arwing - very good, Decurion - useless
Titan - a bit under average (or just different)
Praetorian - average (4 Coladas make it good)
GB - one of the best (against caps anyway),
Cruiser - average?, Dread -?, Osiris - very good BHG
Sea serpent-?,
Manta - good
Bomber - above average
GS- uber, Orca - under average
Dessie - under average, BC - good, BS - very good Liberty
Liberator - very good to uber
Raven Claw - average to good, Avenger - average, Guardian - good
Havoc -average
GB - very good
Cruiser - under average, BC - good, Dread - very good? Bretonia
Hussar-very good
Templar - average
Challenger - good,
GB - under average
Dessie - under average, BS - very good Kusari
Wyrm-very good
Chimaera - good
Bomber - very good
GB - under average (4 guns + very explosive sensitive)
Dessie - very good
BS - under average to useless (due to the weak spot) Rheinland
Phantom - average
Wrath - very good
RH bomber - very good
GB - average to under average
Cruiser - good
BS - very good Rogues
Hyena- useless
Werewolf- very bad, Greyhound - average
Barghest - very bad (but good for pirating)
Rogue GB - one of the best Lane Hackers
Slipstream - very good (uber with current hitbox)
Sabre - very good, Falcata - average to under average (without inferno)
LH GS - under average, Spyglass - under average (crazy difficult to fly and CD sensitive) Blood Dragons
Blood Dragon - very good
Bomber - very good
GB - average
Cruiser - average
BS - no idea
EDIT:
Quote:Please continue now to discuss this until we all starve to death, because no one here seems to come to an agreement... Compromise, make both sides happy.
Yes why not?:P
It's Igiss that makes the compromise in the end.
Igiss says: Martin, you give them a finger, they bite off your arm.
I disagree slightly on light fighters. Being vanilla is not a huge weakness for LFs, since mines, torps and high end missiles kill non-vanilla LFs easily anyway. Not a huge deal.
I find that the Phantom is actually better than the Loki, personally.
i find the whole rebalancing ( and mostly improving ) discussion funny. - you are all aware that bombers are by FAR more powerful than they are supposed to be... i guess. - the balance makes it so that a pair of them or three can take down most capital ships ( thats what they are supposed to do .... they are not supposed to do well against fighters... i would actually love to see them drop like flies when fighting any fighter class ship )
improving bombers against fighters means that they get improved against their original targets, too - and we also know that there is a strong lobby that would rather eat pus than have warships gain some of their deserved strength again ( cause the term "cap-whore" is such a neat knock-out argument )
bombers are much more agile than they should be. - they don t need to approach warships in a straight line or need a lockon time for their torpedos. they can practicly shoot those in a fly-by mode while dodging. ( allmost no other sci-fi simulator allows bombers such a flexibility ) - they are not bigger than fighters and some are just as agile in both strafing and turning. ( no, i don t care for numbers, i care for how it feels to fly them and how it feels to hit them )
furthermore bombers carry a weapon that is the most efficient weapon in the entire game that can be used both - for anti capital ship combat aswell as antifighter combat, they have a great amount of armour that is even further improved by the multiplier.
and yes, my most active char is flying a bomber, too - still i don t like it how strong these ships are. it feels utterly stupid to fight against a warship with hundreds of crewmembers, turrets that are worth more than my entire bomber and still, i can dance around the ship, i can deal more damage to it and i don t even need to look at the ammunition, cause the godly weapon doesn t require some.
i would gladly take a nerf to all bombers - so that i simply avoid fighters. - too bad, i can go against most VHF just aswell.... and thats wrong. the BHG bomber is one of the best - i know... but it feels stupid how much that ship works against everything. - i would really gladly see its turning rate and agility nerft to 50% of what it is now. - fighters should make me tremble and make me retreat... they should not make me smirk and upload the "shieldbreaker/supernova" configuration and have a free go.
' Wrote:I disagree slightly on light fighters. Being vanilla is not a huge weakness for LFs, since mines, torps and high end missiles kill non-vanilla LFs easily anyway. Not a huge deal.
I find that the Phantom is actually better than the Loki, personally.
Nope... mines take 90% hull off most LFs. At least from Slipstream, Tigershark, Arwing, Loki. One cannonball takes half hull, while it kills all vanilla ones.
@Jinx, well capships are not one huge homogeneous group as you should have it. As it is now GBs with missiles (even with only two and limited ammo) eat bombers alive, 1 GB like that basically has no problems with 2 bombers at once. So "poor capships" can defend against bombers. Cruisers also have usable missiles not to mention the Light mortar/Razor can hit bomber at under 500m quite easily (more easily than you can SN a fighter).
Two VHFs have no problem taking down a bomber.
Igiss says: Martin, you give them a finger, they bite off your arm.
The mines and torps will still rip guns off, but I stand corrected.
Regarding Jinx's argument that capships should be able to defend against bombers better... think of real life. Single bombers can take out battleships, reasonably easily. That is why battleships don't get used in modern militaries.
Also, in science fiction... Darth Vader's Executor is taken out by a crashing fighter (analogous to a bomber here). Bombers in Starlancer rape capital ships when defended from fighters.
I agree with the points you stated Mjolnir (Post #31) Yes, you can continue discussing:P
Jinx, thats what Blodo said, the bombers shouldn't be faster and more agile than Fighters. Its the fighters that should be the best counter attack against bombers, so i'm sorry but I don't understand why this discussion is funny. I take it kinda seriously.
And that we also stated larger bombers and the Thor to get a slightly uppgrade is just for the sake of balancing out other bombers. It's even discussed here that some should get nerfed, like the Catamaran.
I find this thread very useful and aimed for a balance. A balance is something that benefits all sides, and I actually believe whats being discussed here does just that.
no, i m not saying that capital ships should defend better against bombers. i m fine with how much trouble they can have ( leave gunboats and missiles ) - but i think fighters should eat them alive. - i can easily live with the fact that from the point of view of a battleship - the bomber is only like a few pixels big and zips around like a mayfly
- but i have the feeling that bombers do too well against fighter. - again, not all... but imo, it would be nicer to ... maybe decrese their size, but make them all as agile as the barghest. - i don t think capships should have an easier life against them, but when i meet a VHF, i expect it to take a bomber down, even when the bomber pilot is an ace and the fighter pilot is worse.
the bomber / capship balance is fine atm - due to the fact that we don t have the numbers to simulate a "real" bomberwing vs. battleship scenario. - but i remember fighting in my hammerhead against a catamaran.. and the hammerhead is one of the really agile ships... still, it was allmost impossible to hit the bomber while it was dodging, even with buckshots. - i know i m not really too good at gunning others down, but i think i should be able to stick on a bombers six in a hammerhead and be able to hit it.
You can't really do that since they are the primary anti-bomber weapons. But ok you agree that caps vs bomber are kind of ok.
The argument that bombers are too good (or more exactly to hard to take down) for fighters is reasonable. And I partly agree 1vs1 fighter can have very hard time with a bomber. The primary weapon for a fighter for this kind of fight are actually missiles/torps/mines, bombers are much more likely to get hit by them => they loose guns.
As to hitting while you are defending capship a LF / VHF combo with some explosives is best for that kind of job. LFs can keep the shield down all the time, without shield the bomber will take hits from the capship and the VHF, that will wear it down, question is how fast yes...
' Wrote:One way to balance fighters against bombers would be to further reduce the amount of guns bombers mount.
Actually yes that's the easiest way to do it.
First step should be catamaran without turret and BHG bomber with only 4 guns.
Second might be all agile bombers (with the smaller powerplant) get only 3 guns, while the less agile keep 4, and Barghest keeps 4+ turret.
Igiss says: Martin, you give them a finger, they bite off your arm.
Thor is smaller than the Werewolf/Wolfhound now, while the Barghest is 1/3 longer than the Thor. It left me think to give the Barghest 4 GB turrets, 1 CD and 1 Torpslot.:crazy:
Also all of the smaller bombers like Catamarans, BHG bomber, Taiidan, Rheinland could have 1 CD and 1 Torpslot only, but i think it would not make a difference.