Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gothars]

A bomber that can survive to take more than one shot is worth 5 bombers who entered Flak range and got wasted for their trouble, torpedoes wasted at the same time.

Sure, but five destroyed bombers of which one successfully delivered a torpedo blow to its target are more worth than 15 bombers which survived but did no damage (and never hat a real chance to).

I mean, come on, when would a long range attack have a real chance to make it through enemy PD? Most likely when the PD is disabled by venting or an overload. But when that is happening it's safe for bombers to approach, so would't it be much better to get close to the target to increase the chance to hit?

Besides, friendly fire might become a real issue with Daggers launching their torpedoes behind you (while you're attacking the mutual target).

They also dropped a lot further away than you'd think; even early-war torpedoes were dropped at more than 1KM from the target.  1KM was still in range of AA (even a HMG can kill things at those distances) but it was far enough away that with a bit of luck, the aircraft would survive.  Even with that precaution, early-war torpedo pilots took some of the highest casualty rates; it wasn't until late-war improvements in torpedoes allowed for high-speed, high-altitude drops that it became a bit less risky.

Funny you should mention that. Those WW2 torpedoes had ranges of more than 5km, so dropping them at 1km, within AA range, is pretty much the equivalent of the close-range runs in Starsector

[xenoargh]

Ranges of 5KM?  Not the airborne variety, at least not very often (while the torpedoes could run that far, they weren't guided and the objective was as short a run as possible, contingent on arming the torpedo and giving it enough time to reach the correct depth). 

Even late-war torpedoes were more like 3KM or so, tops (factoring in airspeed and air travel).  And while 1KM was "in AA range", it wasn't the face-hugging approach that dive-bombers used; we're talking very different animals here, especially once we get into late-war torpedo bombers, where they weren't basically sitting ducks, coming in on the deck at 230KPH or thereabouts.

Anyhow, I think what you're forgetting here is that IRL, a torpedo wasn't going to get hit by flak at all, generally; every once in a while, somebody would kill one with a HMG, but that was rare; it was lot more common that they'd simply miss.  If torpedoes acted more like their WWII counterparts, where dodging was the best defense but they weren't terribly accurate, then the dynamics would be considerably different.  I may try setting up some torpedoes to do that in Vacuum, actually, just to see how that feels

Torpedoes aren't really the problem, anyhow; the difference between them and Atropos is fairly substantial.  I'd argue that Daggers are almost, kind-of worth buying, if you're going really fighter-heavy, but Tridents?  No way.

[Cycerin]

The main problem with Tridents is that they're slow and that Atroposes aren't very good. If the Atropos had a stronger engine and was slightly harder to shoot down, it would be a much more attractive option vs. the Reaper. Right now using your speed to simply ballistically chuck a fat old Reaper at the enemy is better than praying the Atropos' flimsy engine will make it putter along in the right trajectory. And yes, this is also true for AI-guided bombers, if you ask me...

[Alex]

I've never been happy with how Tridents turned out, both in terms of combat performance and feel. I should probably take them out, actually - they're not representative of how I'd like fighters in general to be; it was probably a mistake to release them in this state to begin with.

Not that this is what's happening here, but they certainly shouldn't be the centerpiece of any sort of balance debate.

[Debido]

...they're not representative of how I'd like fighters in general to be; it was probably a mistake to release them in this state to begin with....

I'm curious, what is your ideal representation or vision of how you want fighters to be?

[Gothars]

Ranges of 5KM?  Not the airborne variety, at least not very often (while the torpedoes could run that far, they weren't guided and the objective was as short a run as possible, contingent on arming the torpedo and giving it enough time to reach the correct depth). 

Well, the american mk 13 (airborne) could easily run 5km (source). Here's a interesting training video if anyone is interested

Anyhow, I think what you're forgetting here is that IRL, a torpedo wasn't going to get hit by flak at all

Well, of course the comparison to RL is very much flawed, but, uh, you kinda started it   
It's getting a bit too off topic though, let's stop.

[Reshy]

Why not try giving them harpoons instead?  Maybe that can help things.

[Flare]

I like preserving the torpedoes as they are. I think that dedicated torpedo platforms just needs more torpedoes than they do now.

Not sure if navyfield is something to aspire to, but there are dedicated torpedo boats in the game, and what they did at the beginning of smaller battles without big armored ships was to heavily disrupt the opposing fleet's movements. They would of course save some salvos for later jut in case opportunity shows itself.

The ones in the following video are a bit exaggerated. Rarely do you ever see more than one torpedo of the size necessary to launch these waves in battles, and rarely do they loose waves that overlap in two opposite directions like the ones shown in the video. They often launch slightly angled salvos from roughly the same direction to decrease the gaps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DECFdvb016U

[Thaago]

...

Torpedoes aren't really the problem, anyhow; the difference between them and Atropos is fairly substantial.  I'd argue that Daggers are almost, kind-of worth buying, if you're going really fighter-heavy, but Tridents?  No way.

I really enjoy daggers. I've run fleets with them as the only fighter (and frigates for capping of course) when I'm sure I'm going against enemy capitals. Their performance when guided (rally + strike) to a high flux target is outstanding. Paragons are pretty much immune due to their fortress shield, but thats not really the Dagger's fault :p. I have some issues with their AI (going to capture points or chasing enemy fighters even though they have no anti-fighter/frigate weapons at all), but they are one of the few fighters I think are good right now.

[Histidine]

Well, if it's decided to keep the Trident in a mildly modified form, I'd make the front shield 360° and change the single torpedoes to racks (so one bomber carries four torpedoes).

Then I'd probably buff Atroposi in general; even the ship-mounted version is of extremely questionable value compared to the Reaper.

[Megas]

The Atropos rack of two is deadly with Missile Specialization 10 and hullmods.  With it, a Mercury flagship becomes a cheap missile boat that can kill a few ships with its twelve shots before it needs to retreat.

Without Missile Specialization, the Atropos is impractical.  Much rather use Reapers or single Harpoons instead.

[Silver Silence]

navyfield

Oh god, the memories of Kuma-Kai torpedo walls are coming back to haunt me and my little ol' Algerie.


On the topic of bombers, I honestly don't remember the last time I saw Tridents in the game because they're one of those rarer fighters and I only ever saw them with mods like Restock or that one old one that had green ships and was the first mod to use deployable stations because everyone else just set up in system immediately. The Atropos seems kinda eh... Reapers also seem kinda eh... Both are fairly easily shot down by moderate PD (a couple flak guns denies all but the most determined missile attack). I wouldn't mind if the range of Reapers was increased significantly, damage left the same and speed increased significantly. Range to reach further and "spray" Reapers into the midst of the enemy fleet and the speed to increase chances of hitting a target by giving said target less time to intercept. Torpedoes generally fly so slowly that they can almost always be intercepted. If they can't, it's probably because the ship is getting it's ass handed to it and then torpedoes are kinda unnecessary because the ship is gonna asplode anyway. I think Atropos go even slower than Reapers but they are guided and are still easy to intercept.

I almost always leave missile mounts empty because the exceptionally low ammo count (usually 1 shot or 3 reloads or something of the sort) combined with the fact that missiles can be denied completely by just about anything with a Vulcan strapped to it makes missiles seem gimmicky at best. Find the OP is much better served in hullmods or more powerful arsenal.

[Coolrah]

In my experience bombers are best used in conjunction with other ships. I'd never expect a bomber to get hits off a destroyer or higher unless it was a lucky hit or a certain situation. I always thought that we were supposed to use them to overwhelm ships already engaged with ships similar in size or that are outnumbered by your own ships. But in the case of tridents I think an extra wing plus an increase in speed of the atrop would possibly help to set it aside from the other bombers. Possibly give the trident a full 360 shield since it high tech ya know cause right now its just too slow to even hope to get close enough to do damage to most ships with decent PD.

[FasterThanSleepyfish]

I smell a bot. Unless you're just really into torpedos filled with womens clothes.

[ValkyriaL]

I smell a bot. Unless you're just really into torpedos filled with womens clothes.

That would be pretty nice tho wouldn't it?