Capships re-examined

[waddoff]

I don't agree that lone fighters should be able to take down capital class vessels... whats the point of owning a ship that costs 10 times more but still be killed by fighters?
I mean, its not impossible, a GB was killed today by a lone fighter.

And if you are being hammered by a battleship, it's best to retreat out of range to continue the fight. A tactical retreat is not fleeing, I had an osiris breathing down my neck in NY while fighting 2 Eagles by myself in a Liberator. I just moved out of range from the battleship and kept fighting the Xenos.

Fighters may have a tough time killing cap ships, but a cap ship can still have trouble fending off a group of nimble fighters. I went up against a cruiser with two fellow pilots, all in VHFs, we gave her a real good beating, but my comrads got destroyed and I was forced to retreat. That to me is good combat.


I have a proposition though, perhaps a capital class shield with lower capacity, but a resistance to anti-matter technology is in order? This way some Cap ships will we able to resist bombers, but make them at least killable by fighters.

I also think some cruisers could stand to be bigger, if you compare the size of a fighter cockpit to the size of one deck on a cruiser, I'm pretty sure the cockpit is bigger, taller at least.

---

[El Nino]

I can make it so you die in a single hit but that would be called
ramming and that's highly frowned upon.

Wait arn't the rules set so raming everything above fighters is illegal, while fighters are fair game?

:unsure:I ofthen ram fighters while jousting...

---

Donate to the Poor Pilot's Fundation via Sirius Bank /givecash GreenHawk 1000000 now, and support poor pilots sirius wide!
Skype: jure.grbec
My primary char: Jose El Nino - Corsair Elder captain of the SS Greenhawk

Currently Inactive due to pursuit of life long dreams, will be back...*edited* As promised am back.

[Galm-1]

Wait arn't the rules set so raming everything above fighters is illegal, while fighters are fair game?

:unsure:I ofthen ram fighters while jousting...

Im not totally sure, but it does say that you cant ram anything GB or bigger. Im guessing you can ram in a fighter, its just highly frowned upon, and i know this from personal dogfight experiances in my fighter. As for the GBs, yes the missles are annoying, very annoying, the day 3 bombers are shot down by a GB is a very sad day. I think they need to eather weaken the missles or lower there turn rate, then again, 1 normal gun toating GB vs. lets say... 3 All missle equiped GBs the one has a good chance of winning.

P.S. the way i see it it takes at least 20 fighters to kill a battleship, thats if every fighter was a very good pilot and they all had mini razors and nuke mines, and thats how it should be, look back at WWII or the battles that came after pearl harbor, the fighters had no chance alone, and yes the battleship did shoot the fighters down with ease using flak but when one squadren of bombers shows up, look whos turning around and calling HQ asking for fighter support.

---

[Galm-1]

I also think some cruisers could stand to be bigger, if you compare the size of a fighter cockpit to the size of one deck on a cruiser, I'm pretty sure the cockpit is bigger, taller at least.

I Kinda agree, look at the libert BS, can only fit like.... 30 people in there? hehe then again look at the planets, can only fit like a thouasand people on the planet... think we shoud just leave it, there is way to many things unrealistic in this game, You ever play the WTS mod? you would have to make all the planets as big as jupiter was in that mod, they took up the equal of half on NY, Cruisers would be battlestar II sized, Battleships manhatten sized and so on...

---

[Koolmo]

Battleships are force multiplier and heavy support weapons. When the SCRA uses caps, which is rare, we use them as regen suppliers for the fighters and somethin to pound on other caps with.

BB's are supposed to be accompanied with smaller ships, and fighters should have to punch through them to get to the battleships. Consequently, anyone hoping to take down larger ships in fighters should have a mix of fighters and bombers, bombers to take down the cap, and fighters to hold off the enemy escorts.

This is where cruisers and gunboats come in. Cruisers to distract and damage the enemy battleships, and take down other cruisers. Gunboats to thrash the enemy fighters/bombers, and also to distract the enemy heavies. As far as I can tell, the only ships out of balance here are the gunboats, as they're far too powerful for such small and support-based ships.

---

<span style="color:#FFFF00">&quot;General Solo, is your strike team assembled?&quot;
&quot;Barely, they're pretty drunk.&quot; </span>
SCRA Recruiting--SCRA Feedback--SCRA Message Dump--SCRA Faction Status

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

[bluntpencil2001]

look back at WWII or the battles that came after pearl harbor, the fighters had no chance alone, and yes the battleship did shoot the fighters down with ease using flak

For the most part, no.

Battleships in WW2 were made obsolete entirely. US Carrier Fleet>Japanese Battleships

---

[ferongr]

Remember though, that it took MANY bombs and torpedos to sink a battleship. The Yamato was under atttack by MANY bombers for almost 6 hours, not to mention that a design flaw in the Yamato made the AA guns inoperative while the main cannons where firing. The Bismark exchanged fire with the Hood and the Prince of Wales, was attacked by torpedo biplanes, then was engaged again by British ships and then sank. Most battleships of WWII attacked were sinked in a similar fashion. It was not a lone bomber or a wing of bombers attacking and the ship sinking by 2 or 3 bombs.

(since we are talking about analogies...)

---

[bluntpencil2001]

Remember though, that it took MANY bombs and torpedos to sink a battleship. The Yamato was under atttack by MANY bombers for almost 6 hours, not to mention that a design flaw in the Yamato made the AA guns inoperative while the main cannons where firing. The Bismark exchanged fire with the Hood and the Prince of Wales, was attacked by torpedo biplanes, then was engaged again by British ships and then sank. Most battleships of WWII attacked were sinked in a similar fashion. It was not a lone bomber or a wing of bombers attacking and the ship sinking by 2 or 3 bombs.

(since we are talking about analogies...)

Well, if you look at modern combat, look at the Falklands War to see ships sunk easily.

---

[ferongr]

I know, but I believe Freelancer follows the WWII cliches, rather than modern combat ones.

If it was based more on modern combat, Fighters would strike each other with missiles in large distances (5K+), capital ships would launch a crapload of missiles against enemy fighters, and capital-to-capital combat would not really exist as we see it ingame.

Not to mention, a modern day battleship would have a very sophisticated scanner, able to lock fighters at very large distances, very complex active sonars, ECM's, ECCM's, missiles able to shoot down fighters from very long distances and dual-stage torpedoes (first stage flying in the air towards the submarine, second stage diving in and hitting the sub.)

We really have not seen any large conflict today (ever since the Falklands war technology has changed significantly), and see what tactics are followed.

---