Junker Bomber

[Tenacity]

Both the raider fighter and death scythe have horrible stats as is, why should we waste a good lookin model on them? And that still doesnt help fix the problem of junkers having no bomber other than the import waran bomber, which nobody uses because it's worse than the barghest.

---

[Dennis Jameson]

The bomber looks... good, but i would imagine that the tubes would only hold two torps each. Make it a small, agile, bomber with a tiny cargo space and you've got my vote :P

---

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

10/6

[Dusty Lens]

Why waste a good looking model on them?

Because they could always use a nicer model than what they already have! Could put in a request that it get buffed to stats comparable to an MKII light fighter to boot.

That being said of course I'm not against the Junkers having a bomber. But if it's going to be a bomber make it a bomber, not a light fighter begging for someone to slap a mini/inferno+sunslayer on it to go destroy the server.

Long story short, the folks who give this kind of thing a thumbs up or a thumbs down would look at you funny if you attempted to submit a vessel of that size with those capabilities.

For example:

[Tenacity]

I could scale it up in size, but it'd end up having a rediculously big cockpit then... maybe ill see what I can do about altering the cockpit shape. Otherwise, it could just end up being a 2-person cockpit (even though I hate those) to fit the larger size.

---

[Taffic]

Both the raider fighter and death scythe have horrible stats as is, why should we waste a good lookin model on them? And that still doesnt help fix the problem of junkers having no bomber other than the import waran bomber, which nobody uses because it's worse than the barghest.

I saw Adrian.Morvayn use a Waran in New London yesterday - a congress member no less. I'm sure a Gaian uses one as well. The Waran might not be the best, but its not as bad as people make out. I was thinking of getting one to defend Junker space in Trafalgar, but our visitors show respect & a protection squad isn't really needed, so I stick with the TRF.

I like the Scrapper - it looks good & I would gladly fly it. Junker ships traditionally hold more cargo space than their couterparts, with the Scrapper being so small I cannot see a cargo hold of more than 25. Any comments?

---

[Tenacity]

I'll upload more pics in a couple of minutes, I made a few simple changes that should fix the size issue.

---

[Tenacity]

Ok, here's the new comparison pics.

First, the changes - all I did was add a couple seats into the cockpit to give a different size comparison (changed the ship's scale to fit the new seats):



Now, of course these seats wouldnt be an actual part of the model (the floor section in the back would be) - they're added in as hardpoints after the model is finished (I think...)

The new size comparison to the saber - with the seat size it may be just a hair too big now, could take some further tweaking:




Overall it ends up with a much larger hit box (about the same as the collector, maybe slightly larger), and reduced turning speed to match. I assume it would end up being more like the falcata or praetorian in turning rate now - though still probably slightly faster, since it lacks the firepower of the other bombers with no supernova capability (a unique feature I'd like to keep, honestly).

---

[Dusty Lens]

The Collector currently has a turn of 1.0 to compensate for its size, tank and cargo utility background.

This ship you've proposed is essentially the same as the Collector, but with dual torps, an extra gun and vastly increased powerplant at the cost of two turrets.

There was a point back in the day where I thought the idea of a light bomber was a cool concept, before I became familiarized with what such a bomber could do to a fighter when placed in the right hands. With 'small' bombers such as the cat loaded down with dual minis or a mini/inferno + torp there was very little that average or unlucky pilots could do to compensate in a straight fight. Hence the reason why people are working so hard to pull bombers away from such roles in combat.

I would suggest moving away from the mindset of a 'midrange' bomber, essentially a craft that carries the strengths of a VHF with the added bonuses of a bomber's plant and torp slot. Especially at this stage, where you would need to ask Igiss to include a new powerplant for you (as it's an item, as opposed to simple stats). Either to focus on creating a pure bomber or taking the model to refine it refurbished MK II version of the current Junker LF.

My two cents, take 'em or leave 'em.

[Tenacity]

The hardpoints could always be modified. It doesnt have to have 4 guns, or 2 guns and 3 turrets, etc. You could leave it with only 2 forward firing class 10 guns and nothing else (but the torp tubes of course), which would give it less overall firepower than any bomber or fighter. The problem then is that, to be effective against any kind of large ship (gunboats/cruisers) you'd be forced into equipping 2 colada del cids and 2 mini razors.

I just dont think the supernova should be available to everyone, and junkers dont have much of a need for it. I used to have a bomber set up with 2 mini's and it could take out a gunboat just fine, some of them were even easier to take on than with a supernova (since razors are easier to aim). It just doesnt have the damage efficiency of a supernova cannon, and with current bombers it forces you to give up the cruise disruptor which is a huge tactical disadvantage.

You're thinking too much inside the box =P

---

[Guest]

I wish this thing could have stayed small... I would very much like to come back to the server after 4.85 to find that there's a sleek little Coupe version of the CSV that spams tiny little torps. Too bad.