Battleships

[NonSequitor]

Battleships are fine. The Primary turrets are fine. Secondary turrets are a waste of a hardpoint, frankly. As far as personally owning 2 battleships I have to agree with Eppmeister on that point. You're better off settling for one BS and slapping some cap 8 armor on that bad boy. A BS is a big target and you're going to need that armor.

If you want to keep bombers off-balance, get yourself 2 battle razors and assign each of them to different weapons' groups. They were originally designed to take out gunboats but with practice you can ruin a bomber pilot's day.

Solaris turrets are ok, but not nearly as useful as battle razors. BRs can zap bombers and cap ships. Solaris turrets are anemic in the dps department. And their range is pitiful. Sure, if you put 4+ Solaris turrets on your BS you'll be cursed by every bomber pilot. And then they call in a cap ship to take you out, since your anti-cap capability is somewhat compromised. Choices, choices.

Bombers: Since bomber proponents like to use real-world paradigms and comparisons, how about this one - dedicated bombers are larger, less manuverable and slower than fighters. More often than not, bombers are accompanied by fighters. They have a limited amount of ordinance. Bombers blow the big targets up (as they should) but they have considerable limitations and drawbacks.

Currently, Disco's basic bomber design philosophy can be summed up thus: Bombers are VHFs with larger power plants. Ok, this is a bit of an exageration, but not too far off the mark. Wonder why you see more bombers than VHFs? Why would you settle for a VHF, when you can have a bomber, which is only somewhat less manuverable than a fighter with a lot more juice for the guns?

For the record I own both a BS and a bomber.

[reavengitair]

/signed.

Lets keep battleships as it is.

If not, make them more expensive. It can be a bitch to trade for them, I've traded for 3 battleships, while playing Dota.

However, in the end... the way disco PVP works now is pretty much good for me. The only thing I would like is the short movement speed boost so my lag doesn't completley kill pvp.

[Friday]

'Bombers' in FL are basically Fighter-Bombers. Good against hard targets, but with some anti-fighter capability.

There arent really any strategic bombers - mainly because FL doesnt rely on long range combat with missiles.

In this 'real world' paradigm, bomber combat is over the horizon. Strategic bombers use powerful countermeasures, missiles, and stealth to avoid direct combat with fighters.

For that matter, capital ship combat is the same as Naval Combat - which is also over the horizon.

If you want a slower, tougher 'true' bomber - then give Freighters torp slots...

---

[reavengitair]

If you want a slower, tougher 'true' bomber - then give Freighters torp slots...

To give freighters torp slots...

3 or 4?

[Marcus Lindberg]

I haven't read other people's posts yet, I can't be bothered to read 6 pages of what I can only presume is essays.

But I'd still like my voice to be heard, if everyone got 2 battleships per player, there would be too many battleships, which is not supposed to happen. Battleships are expensive to make and all so yeah.

On them being weak against bombers, they are SUPPOSED to be weak against bombers, they really should focus on the other smaller capital ships and other battleships like they were meant for. If they became OP against bombers, then what the heck is the point of having a bomber anyways?

bye.

[reavengitair]

I haven't read other people's posts yet, I can't be bothered to read 6 pages of what I can only presume is essays.

But I'd still like my voice to be heard, if everyone got 2 battleships per player, there would be too many battleships, which is not supposed to happen. Battleships are expensive to make and all so yeah.

On them being weak against bombers, they are SUPPOSED to be weak against bombers, they really should focus on the other smaller capital ships and other battleships like they were meant for. If they became OP against bombers, then what the heck is the point of having a bomber anyways?

bye.

Even though i've probably posted too much here...

/signed.

Seriously.

/super/signed.

[Colonel.Tigh]

The Battleships are good as they are now, powerful, but dead meet versus two or more bombers. as it should be.
They are also very expesive, especially with that cap. mk8 armor, therefor is see no reason why there is that one Battleship per player rule. Shared battleships are a way around this rule, and its poitless, i a player want 3 or more battleships and can pay for them, by all means, let them, they can only fly one at a time.
Ritch player may want to collect all of them:P

[Eppy]

The Battleships are good as they are now, powerful, but dead meet versus two or more bombers. as it should be.
They are also very expesive, especially with that cap. mk8 armor, therefor is see no reason why there is that one Battleship per player rule. Shared battleships are a way around this rule, and its poitless, i a player want 3 or more battleships and can pay for them, by all means, let them, they can only fly one at a time.
Ritch player may want to collect all of them:P

Now, the question is, should they keep being dead meat even if they brought a pack of fighters with them? I think anybody who says 'yes' really needs to buy a Battleship, pardon my appeal to authority; is it at all fair to the players who've made that huge investment to basically declare their ship worthless no matter the friends they bring along?

---

Quick comment - we thought that Panzer was the Leader, Swift. -Agmen

Which Dreadnought was that?

One of your nine.

[Har3]

I totaly agree with Eppy. BS are fine, but the main problem is in bombers. They are uber powerful against capitals and against fighters as well. If we want to have balance, then fighters need to be able to take out bombers, fast as hell, as are they capable to take BS ultra fast. Sure is possible to kill bomber with fighter, but you need 15 minutes to do that, and if you make one wrong move you can easily get snaced, or razored. And what happened to gb's, they are suposed to be anti fighter, bomber vessels, with those turets, [ range of 800, and speed 800 ] , and that amount of hull, they can't kill much. With gb, you can kill other gb, and that's pretty much all.

[Mr.Fabulous]

A Battleship is a big RP responsibility, and while some people can and have done it well in the past, it's infrequent to see it

Second, U R doin it wrong! A turret speed increase wouldn't help fend off the bombers all that much

In ever tactical combat example between Battleships and Battle Cruisers, Smaller, heavier fighters, namely the bomber, were the great equalizer. You name it from every book and historical event, game and sci fi movie that used big and large craft,

One bomber, not several, with an anti-matter gun makes even a heavy battleship run for its money. What is it, 3 to 4 shots and a Liberty BS, the one with the big gun, is toast?

Yes, bombers are specifically made to make a Battleships day a very difficult one, but not an impossible one.

Short answer:
Make specialization in the capitals, while bombers shouldn't be able to take out a BS in only pairs, but in several squads.

Long (and more accurate) answer:
Read the first quote above... He says that capitals, let alone a BS, are a BIG responsibility to take care of. It takes a lot of resources to create one, a lot of good, smart men to handle it, and a lot of planning to get it to move anywhere...

Now read the second quote... Yes, bombers are a force to be reckoned with, but let's face it: althought at times a bomber strike can hit a sink a vessel, the escorts are there to shoot the goddamn thing down, or at least the point-defenses are there to shoot the goddamn thing down. The bombers are supposed to make a captain's day, but the captain is in the safe hands of the fighter escorts, or the specialized ships meant for anti-aircraft fighting.

What I would like is that the other capitals would be very specialized. This is my example:
BS --->>> Beats every other capital ships with the biggest, scariest guns you could ever see

BC --->>> Beats a BC because the shear power and gun speed it has can destroy it

C --->>> Beats a GB because the shear power and gun speed it has can destroy it

GB --->>> Beats Fighters because of their SUPERIOR anti-fighter guns

Bombers --->>> Beats a BS since the capital's guns are WAY TOO SLOW to accurately hit them. Cannot defeat BC, C, GB and fighters since their torps are WAY TOO SLOW to accurately hit them, and that they only have VERY FEW WEAPON SLOTS.

Fighters --->>> Beats a Bomber since the Bombers are SUPER SLOW, and have not much weapons save torpedoes.

The bomber would be relatively agile against capitals, but not agile enough to go against fighters, which would be equivalent for a capital-turn-rate ship against an Arrow. The torpedoes would be UBER SLOW PROJECTILES, like maybe 40m/s, so slow a BC could even outrun it, which would allow other capital ships to go do the same technique of the GMG against the Rheinlanders in the 80-Year War. The Torps, however, would be invincible, so as to indicate that the captain WOULD have to move his ship. The bomber would have weak thrusters as well, and since the BS is too slow to outrun it, that would make bombers the 2-card against the ace. Hmmm... maybe a freighter armed with torp slots would be a better example of one.

The fighters would be the anti-bombers of the fleet, and they would be so effective in it that even just one fighter is needed for a fighter-bomber duel, and that even skilled bomber pilots could only last about 1-5 minutes against one alone (finally, a tip in the odds). SHF would feel fast compared to a bomber.

I agree that bombers can be strong, but they should have their own equalizer, along with the BS as well... The BS would serve as the MOTHER OF ALL FLEETS: the superweapon, the anti-capital. Their weapons would be extremely slow, but 1-2 hits from its main cannon could send a BC into decommission, let alone a GB. That said, would give the BS the respect it deserves.

Oh, and speaking of GB, my opinion on the GB is that it should be the anti-fighters of the fleet, with so much guns it would make swiss cheese a shadow of its former self, like say: 10-15 gun/turret mounts, but no missile/torp mounts, and agile enough to be more than a match against even in a 1:10 ratio.

This said, I would leave the reader to his/her own imagination. These are my opinions, but I hope they help.

---

Factions Involved In

| |


[Click the logos to learn more]

:::

Click the links below for more of my content!
>>> Roleplay Info & Character Feedback Thread
>>> DeviantArt
>>> Youtube