Author Topic: Fighter-Bombers?  (Read 1417 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thiosk

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 784
  • Thanked: 1 times
Fighter-Bombers?
« on: May 09, 2011, 04:38:42 AM »
I was looking through some of the missile design windows earlier, and I noticed that there is an option for setting engines to zero, creating an orbital bomb.

I immediatly wondered if I could deliver such weapons against warships-- using a fast, (cloaked?) fighter to deliver a high yield warhead target.  I'm assuming here that the code is not present to make that work, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
 

Offline ZimRathbone

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 332
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Fighter-Bombers?
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2011, 08:48:06 AM »
I was looking through some of the missile design windows earlier, and I noticed that there is an option for setting engines to zero, creating an orbital bomb.

I immediatly wondered if I could deliver such weapons against warships-- using a fast, (cloaked?) fighter to deliver a high yield warhead target.  I'm assuming here that the code is not present to make that work, but I figured I'd throw it out there.

I think that you could do this (the bomb is merely a very slow missile), but it would not work unless the target was stationary -  there is no mechanism for kamikazi fighters to set off weapons as they ram (like the Rigelians in Starfire), and in any other situation even if you fire the missile from zero range, the target will get to move before the missile explodes.

Given the cost of the delivery mechanism (ie the fighter) I suspect that it would be highly uneconomic as they would be shot out of space in droves - see the recent thread on beam armed fighters
SlĂ inte,

Mike
 

Offline welchbloke

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 986
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Fighter-Bombers?
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2011, 09:10:22 AM »
Given the cost of the delivery mechanism (ie the fighter) I suspect that it would be highly uneconomic as they would be shot out of space in droves - see the recent thread on beam armed fighters
Agreed, I just had a battle with a new protagonist that had ECM 10 and my fighters, lacking any ECCM had to close to range zero. I lost 64 fighters attacking one ship  :o
Welchbloke
 

Offline Brian

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1214
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Fighter-Bombers?
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2011, 10:54:02 AM »
Also the bomb will have a very low chance to hit as it would still functionaly be a missile.  Moving at 1km/s vs a target at 4000km/s will have a very poor chance to hit.

Brian
 

Offline ardem

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • a
  • Posts: 774
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Fighter-Bombers?
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2011, 08:34:55 PM »
You could make the bomb (aka missile) with very small amount of fuel and more in engine and the actual warhead, or if you want to simulate a bomb make the speed the same as the max speed of your fighter bomber, to simulate release and momentum.

But unfortunately to use these you going to need stealth, surprise and luck to get close.

The game is very missile centric.

 

Offline Starkiller

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • S
  • Posts: 210
Re: Fighter-Bombers?
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2011, 09:34:34 PM »
Not surprising. So was Starfire, and the Novels, especially "In Death Ground" and "The Shiva Option", the two
Starfire novels telling the story of the 4th Interstellar War, explained why, and had a tactic to limit fighter losses.

Unfortunately, this tactic is VERY difficult to impliment in Aurora because it requires VERY fine timing. Getting the
fighters into attack range, at the same time the missiles from the capital ships arrive, will force the point defense
to concentrate on one, or the other.

Only defense a fighter really has, is it's speed and size. Make fighters as fast as your tech allows, and as small as
possible. Fighter/Bombers aren't really practical until you have box launchers.

Eric
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2730
  • Thanked: 66 times
Re: Fighter-Bombers?
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2011, 10:00:12 PM »
  there is no mechanism for kamikazi fighters to set off weapons as they ram (like the Rigelians in Starfire),

Amusingly enough, it occurred to me while talking about "missiles, fighters, GB, etc. are really just small ships", that there isn't a warhead component that you can add to a fighter or GB.  I then realized that it probably wouldn't make sense from a gameplay point of view to add the system, since a missile is probably a better delivery vehicle, so I didn't mention it as a suggestion.  Interesting that it came up a day or two later in this thread.

John
 

Offline Narmio

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • N
  • Posts: 181
Re: Fighter-Bombers?
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2011, 12:15:59 AM »
Ramming can be crazy-powerful, though, if you have the mass and speed.  I had a Precursor troop ship ram one of my troop-carriers for a 244 damage hit. It gibbed every single component inside the ship all at once, and took a 99 damage hit itself in return.  It then did the same thing to a freighter a week later (also gibbed) and took another 99 damage, killing itself. :/
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Fighter-Bombers?
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2011, 03:56:46 PM »
I really think missile should be just another kind of small ships. You'd have a "Missile Engine", just like the fighter engine now, with serious limitation, and you could fit warhead on any ship. (And shoot fighter from missile launcher).
 

Offline Thiosk

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 784
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Fighter-Bombers?
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2011, 04:11:21 PM »
Since fighters are produced in specific factories, and not shipyards, I wouldn't be opposed.  Would make their development a little more straightforward.  However, how one would fit weapons to such vessels is a notable concern-- do you use one size fits all weapons that match the current warhead technology, as with missiles, or do you do fit designed weapons within the fighter design tab?  What kind of limitations do we put on it by having a specific fighter tab?  Missiles don't have fundamental limits on size, only practical limits.  Would fighters be the same way?

However, anything that could make beam fighters more fun I love.  I don't particularly like missiles, but I love beam weaponry.
 

Offline Narmio

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • N
  • Posts: 181
Re: Fighter-Bombers?
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2011, 10:56:45 PM »
I really think missile should be just another kind of small ships. You'd have a "Missile Engine", just like the fighter engine now, with serious limitation, and you could fit warhead on any ship. (And shoot fighter from missile launcher).
There is only one problem I can think of with this: You can launch any number of fighters from a hangar at once. If you could make missile-size missile-engined fighters with warheads, then store them in a hangar bay rather than a magazine, you could theoretically launch all 1000t of ordinance at once, like a gigantic pile of box launchers.

Maybe it's a good thing that missiles are kept in magazines and fighters are kept in hangars, and that missiles have a restricted launch rate while fighters can all pop out at once. I agree that once in space they should be treated as similarly as possible, but separate storage and delivery is probably not a bad thing.
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Fighter-Bombers?
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2011, 02:13:23 AM »
That would be solved by two simple tricks: first state that to be able to use an hangar bay, you need a pilot. With a pilot come a command module, so 20 MSP of useless space. Second, fighters shouldn't get out of the hangar bay in a single 5-second increment. It should take some time, maybe depending on TF training. That way, having large launcher that launch fighter could be useful for fast response.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54