Regardless of what turrets a BS has it can still only shoot 2 fighters at any one time.
Lock one up and use missiles on it, track the other using the other turrets.
Either way when there are 4+ fighters swooping and diving all over it a Bs can't kill them all before they cause at least some damage.
But at the moment all it takes is a lone VHF or bomber to kill a player BS, I think it should take 4+ VHFs or bombers, specifically set-up to hurt a player BS, to do any damage.
Yes people will just buy cap-ships, but then again they do already.
For example, I spoke to a new player the other day who wanted to be GIVEN the money to buy a cruiser.
He wasn't interested in trading to get it, and when I mentioned joining a faction he immediately asked which one paid the most.
So why should we worry about everyone using cap-ships?
If they get out of hand we can always gang up on them, or if they cheat we can tell the admins.
As for Star Wars it was a lone fighter crashing into the bridge, no real-life ship has ever been destroyed by a hit to the bridge, that I ever heard of anyway.
Now if it had hit the armoury or the engines then yes, I'd expect it to blow up.
But the all the fighter did was take out the bridge, so the helm went off-line and it got dragged into the death star because the death star out-massed it.
Unfortunately in FL when you hit the bridge of a cap-ship with a torpedo nothing much happens.
You know what, you may be right. Creating an anti-fighter turret may be a little more difficult than I had imagined in my mind. It seems like a viable option at first, but the execution would be a complete pain unless you made it a rapid fire missile turret or something of the sort.
Actually, I meant the Death Star getting destroyed by fighters shooting torpedos up its pooper. There it took a squadron of fighters and bombers to accomplish this because of the gun emplacements and a wing of TIE fighters.
By referring to "Tora Tora Tora" I meant a single torpedo plane could ruin a battleship's day very quickly. However, for the planes to land such a hit it would require a squadron to distract the inevitable escort fighters and flak cannons long enough for one to get a shot in.
I did say they needed to be better against fighters, you didn't read my post thoroughly and so you didn't know :P
And the gunboats aren't supposed to just laugh if a fighter comes up. A BS IS. 1 single fighter should not be able to do any damage to a BS shield. Unless it has 4 coladas and 2 tizonas and a Nova. That should be the only setup deadly to a BS on its own. And then it would be weak against other fighters. But a GROUP of fighters should.
Tain have YOU read/seen Star Wars?! Notice when they attack Star Destroyers they do so with 12 X-wings or so firing two torps each? It should be alot like that?
And we would be taking the idea of balance in Freeworlds. Not like we were going to be taking ships off it, so they aren't going to complain, and they aren't the only mod balanced in such a way.
And a fighter could still do damage to a BS but it should be alot less. Not one taking it all out but at least 4-5 of them to do so, or 1-2 working with a cruiser to take it out.
Dab: dont start again, ok? theres enough flamming posts and threads without adding to them
Tain: Don't reply to dab! seriously it's not worth it.
On-topic:
Maybe, to balance things up abit( and turning tain's point in another thread around :laugh: ), we should make the BS missile turrets use ammo as well as using energy.
The ammo would represent the fact that a BS can't shoot forever and the energy usage is to activate/trigger the engines/propellant.
The next question should be what about the flak turrets? Should they use ammo or not?
They do just as much, if not more, damage as missiles. They just use less energy, are harder to aim and don't always hit what you want them to hit.
And the last question is...
When you change the max ammo amount can it be done so that fighters still only hold 70, gunboats 125/150, cruisers/destroyers 200/250 and BS's 300/400?
These are just rough figures to make a point.
If a tiny fighter can hold 70 why can't a gunboat hold double that? Obviously a cruiser/destroyer can hold more ammo then a gunboat and a BS can hold more then a cruiser/destroyer.
Then theres the mortars, maybe they should use ammo too? And maybe do it so that ships can only store half as many torpedos as missiles because torpedos are usually bigger.
I'm just kicking out some ideas here.
Mainly because I think a cap-ship shouldn't be able to sit over a base or planet for hours on end blowing up everything in sight, unless it's equipped with just energy turrets or is only using it's energy turrets.
Plus it might stop all the players mounting multiple torpedo and missile launchers on their BS's, they'll have to get a balance between energy and ammo using weapons.
As it is, cap-ships only disengage if they've been damaged or are full.
We should also think about having NPC cap-ships drop the odd turret, that way pirate players can destroy cap-ships and loot better equipment.
Pirates in fighters can so why not pirates in a cap-ship?
I prefer not to use Star Wars as a reference for fighter combat as the anti fighter capabilites of the ships really sucks. And the star wars tech is just fantastic plot-designed stuff.
Tell me how a culture with 10000 years of space faring experience with such an advanced technology designs a huge battle station with a stupid vent port that leads directly to the main core, and with a shield that cannot stop small thing to pass trough? (Which is illogical as torpedoes, which are smaller than fighters, should have no problem hitting the surface, as the shields wont stop them due that they are too small)
Or a Star Destroyer whose shield generator towers are outside of the shield itself?
Not even XIX century engineers would do such a stupid mistake.
Star wars is centered arround fighters. Those ships are the heroes of the movie. So it is logically to assume that it will tend to let fighter win even against the most formidable BS...
We also cant take for reference actual naval ships. As they have nothing in common with space ships too.
A battleship is supposedly designed to be able to take down evey ship, exept another battleship. What would be the sense of making a 1000mill bs if a 2mill fighter can pwn it?
No, battleships should not be worried about a single fighter or bomber. A squad of 5-6 fighters should be able to make damage, and with bomber support, the squad should be able to bring it down.
(If you find any mistake in my English, please let me know via a PM)
(Really, I speak terrible English, so please, tell me if I make mistakes. I'd like to improve it a bit )
You both can go chill in a corner somewhere over that way. --->
I'm not talking about Star Wars or World War 2. You wanna nitpick my examples, have fun. :crazy:
I know it isn't worth it, Marauder. Sure is amusing though.
Back on topic:
I like that idea for having battleships use ammo. Maybe replace the flak turret with one that has a long arm (thinking about 1.5Km), plenty of speed to back it up (at least 1200M/s), decent damage (no ball park figure here; since it would ideally be an "Area of Effect" weapon I'm not sure what would work) and with relatively fast rate of fire (About 4.00). Just something that doesn't fly at the enemy with the intensity of a poorly thrown baseball.
Since it would run off an ammo reserve, that would hopefully prevent people from mounting 14 of them on a battleship and blasting the hell out of everything.
Making ammo for those turrets would end up just making people buy Solaris and Corsair BS turrets instead of anything requiring ammo. This won't balance it out but end up making certain weapons useless.