Yet again about the ships

[Pancakes]

one of the main problems of bombers vs. caps is that:

- caps go from a tiny bottlenose up to a juggernaut - and the bomberclass has the ambition to be equally awesome vs. all of them.

- capships enjoy the greatest range of sizes and strengths of all ships - and it is only the rough classification as "capital" (war)-ships that puts them all under one banner.
we differentiate fighters a lot more even if their differences are a lot smaller. - a light fighter to a VHF does not vary as much in size as a bunboat to a battleship. - even the agility and speed of a LF isn t so much different as the agility and speed of a gunboat to a battleship.

- so lets think of it ... we want one ship that is equally good vs. ALL fightertypes... the tiny and over-agile voidrunner up to the spatial SHF. - and with equally good i mean "this ship is meant to take them out" ( just as so many proclaim that the bomber is meant to take out capital warships )

- do we have such a ship?

no ship in disco can take on all fighters - except other fighters. - sure... a battleship can reduce any fighter to scrap metal in seconds.... provided the fighter does not move and is well in range. but not even the gunboat can kill a fighter if the fighter decides NOT to be killed.

it is a little different with capital warships. - since they are slower, they cannot run away as easy as a fighter can run from a capital warship. - its chance of survival if it fails to hit the enemy is to dock.
so what was mentioned is kind of right...
- we have three kinds of bombers. - why on earth do we want them to be equally good vs. all capital warships
- light bombers might be good vs. gunboats - but bad vs. battleships ( yes, they are not as good as heavy bombers right now, but hardly bad )

- heavy bombers should be good vs. cruisers, but lacking vs. gunboats and lower on power vs. battleships

- superheavy bombers should be good vs. battleships, but worse vs. cruisers and bad vs. gunboats.
how could you achive that? - a light bomber would have little power and would be what we call "fighterbomber" - roughly fightersized, slightly heavier armour for slightly less agility and one main cannon that takes ages to recharge. ( no SNAC, but why not a dual slot for razors )

heavy bombers would be significantly larger in size, a lot less agile - but pack a lot more power ( kind of like the fafnir now ) ... equipped with something like the SNAC with a short range (< 600 [which extends to more due to the bombers momentum] )

superheavy bombers would be roughly GB size - also only about as agile - and a lot LESS armoured ( with only light shields ) - but they would pack a hell of a punishment.... with a rather slow but semi guided projectile ( working nova type )

at the same time - decrease gunboat armour significantly ( their main defense being their shield ) - increase cruiser armour significantly and also increase battleship armour by a lot
the above only describes an IDEA - but also the problem.
in terms of "scissor, paper, stone" the bomber is THE allround ship still - not as good as 4.84 for sure - and certainly not as powerful as the dual nova cannon bombers of 4.83...

a light bomber should dodge like they do now - thats just fair... but a bomber designed to fight the heaviest of battleships should not be the so called "fighter-bomber"-type anymore.
edit:

and cause its fasionable to compare real life - just a fun thing... :

i found THAT with google - ppl say that its used to shoot down "big" air things...

http://data3.primeportal.net/artillery/voj...ef_07_of_25.jpg
and below i found that on google which is meant to shoot down "small" air things

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger_03.jpg
no idea if thats really true - but if it is... you see the differences. - there must be a reason why one is small enough to be fired from the shoulder ( light bomber if you want it so ) ... and the other looks like its 2 moonrockets on wheels ( but yes - maybe the 2 big missiles are just from ww2 and the rocketlauncher is modern - who knows )

what i want to show is.... big weapons to deal with big things ( even nowadays ) - small weapons to deal with small things. ... and yes... a single satchel charge can probably take out an entire battleship - but we do not play "splinter cell" where one man infiltrates the ship...

Did you just compared a stinger to a ballistic artilery vehicel?

Anyhow, Stinger is not as quite as you said, but for slower aircrafts, mainly helicopters and cargo airplanes, like the A400M , while http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPYDER this for example is much heavier and is anti jet airplanes.
Anti air missiles are mostly going by the speed of the target rather the it's size i.e a stinger is useless against raptor (F-22) as the Raptor can simply out speed it. But the raptor is much smaller then the Airbus A400M while being much faster.
Anyway, same principal should be applied to discovery, faster projectiles should be used by light bombers to take down faster capital ships, but they should do less damage, and heavier ones, that are slower but doing more damage should be used by the super heavy bombers.

---

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD