17 replies to this topic

[Solemn Penance]

I was thinking, and i thought it could be cool if the flak ships could shoot missiles alongside their guns at fighters. I think, for the Stalwart, if you added AA missiles and nerf the Helixes and Archers that would be cool. Also, if you upped the picket's speed and maneuverability and made it chase squadrons that would be cool as well, but I'm not sure that's possible.

[SiRD31M0S]

Practically speaking, having a warship designed to provide a fighter screen for other ships pack a whole ton of AA missiles is kinda silly. They take up far too much space to be a viable anti-fighter munition on a ship that may or may not be able to restock in the next few hours, let alone days. Bullets are cheaper, less massive, easier to store, and aren't slow-moving tubes of explosives trying to catch fast-moving, extremely maneuverable spacecraft.

 

Gameplay-wise, there's really no reason to do this. Stalwarts already occupy a pretty low rung on the "I can pull my weight in a large-scale fight" ladder. Making them even less capable of defending themselves doesn't serve a meaningful purpose. I don't think I've actually ever used the Picket, so I can't really comment on that one.

[Solemn Penance]

Have you ever heard of US Ticonderoga missile cruisers? And, is it not possible to boost the missile speed in-game?

[SternuS]

 I think, for the Stalwart, if you added AA missiles and nerf the Helixes and Archers that would be cool.

Care to explain why would it be cool?

 

 

 Also, if you upped the picket's speed and maneuverability and made it chase squadrons that would be cool as well, but I'm not sure that's possible.

 

It already chases squadrons. Both the Stalwart and Picket/CAR have priority on fighter squadrons, meaning they will fight them before everything else.

Have you ever heard of US Ticonderoga missile cruisers? And, is it not possible to boost the missile speed in-game?

1) No, I've never heard of it. And we're 500 years in the future, so I guess technology might've changed, since 500 years ago we battled each other with Crossbows.

2) I am not certain you can. Besides, there is no need to, since in this mod speed of projectiles is irrelevant.

 

Your "do that because that would be cool" behaviour without appropriate explanation backup is rustling my jimmies, truth be told.

[Solemn Penance]

OK I agree the missile thing is a waste of time, but what I meant with the picket would be that if could turn faster and actually go after fighters instead of just rotating in one spot, kinda like a gunboat or something, but I guess that's kind of the fighters job. I just thought it might make the combat more flowing, with ships racing around to get shots on stuff. Please don't take my ideas the wrong way. if you don't like them, just say so and I'll drop 'em

[Riftis]

The Stalwart feels fairly strong at the moment (comparatively of course), a small group can completely shut down Covy fighter superiority and then with their MAC and archers they can still join in on fleet engagements, I often feel they're dramatically more effective in the anti-fighter role than Longswords and they combo exceptionally well with Orbital Defense Platforms for larger battles, additionally they can completely substitute the Paris against the Flood. Rather than making them more powerful I've actually been thinking they should be made slightly more expensive, maybe 20 credits or 5 deuterium.

 

They do struggle to keep up with fighters, it would be interesting to see if they could be balanced to include a researchable "intercept" ability like the Phoenix-class assault ship or the Kodiak from base Sins, but I think the Devs have said before that having ships with MACs move around more in combat isn't great visually.

[Fleet Admiral agigabyte]

but I think the Devs have said before that having ships with MACs move around more in combat isn't great visually.

I believe the analogy involved trying to have sex while drunk and high in the dark.

[SiRD31M0S]

Have you ever heard of US Ticonderoga missile cruisers?

Seemingly correlating with my "missiles take up a lot of space" point, the Ticonderoga can only carry roughly seventy AA missiles. The Stalwart is nearly three times as long as the Ticonderoga, but in terms of space it is dominated by the structure of its MAC, like most UNSC ship models. It also needs to carry the rounds for the MAC, as well as Archers for ship-to-ship engagements. That doesn't leave a lot of room for the anti-fighter missiles. Bullets are still far more practical.

 

Also Ticonderogas don't have to try and shoot down jets that can maneuver under the ship itself. There are no static, hard barriers in open space. Ships and debris are always moving, which means cover from missiles is always changing. Covenant ships are typically very large, making this rather irrelevant, but fighters are very small and very maneuverable. A weapon being effective in-atmosphere and a weapon being effective in space are very different things.

[Solemn Penance]

Seemingly correlating with my "missiles take up a lot of space" point, the Ticonderoga can only carry roughly seventy AA missiles. The Stalwart is nearly three times as long as the Ticonderoga, but in terms of space it is dominated by the structure of its MAC, like most UNSC ship models. It also needs to carry the rounds for the MAC, as well as Archers for ship-to-ship engagements. That doesn't leave a lot of room for the anti-fighter missiles. Bullets are still far more practical.

 

Also Ticonderogas don't have to try and shoot down jets that can maneuver under the ship itself. There are no static, hard barriers in open space. Ships and debris are always moving, which means cover from missiles is always changing. Covenant ships are typically very large, making this rather irrelevant, but fighters are very small and very maneuverable. A weapon being effective in-atmosphere and a weapon being effective in space are very different things.

To be honest, the analogy is almost completely useless because bombers in the halo universe get way closer then they do in the real world. In a real air vs. surface engagement, bombers shoot from far beyond visual range, making guns useless and also real missiles move faster then bullets. But this isn't real life, so I concede your point.

 

When fighters keep their distance bullets are pathetically inaccurate and altogether useless, but fighters move close in Halo, where bullets are indeed more useful.

[SternuS]

OK I agree the missile thing is a waste of time, but what I meant with the picket would be that if could turn faster and actually go after fighters instead of just rotating in one spot, kinda like a gunboat or something, but I guess that's kind of the fighters job. I just thought it might make the combat more flowing, with ships racing around to get shots on stuff. Please don't take my ideas the wrong way. if you don't like them, just say so and I'll drop 'em

The fact is that AA ships acutally chase fighters. As soon as they jump in a grav well, they point directly to a squadron. The reason you don't see them moving around, but rather pivoting, is beacause fighters get away and turn back, always being in range of the frigate. If you order all of your squadrons to get out fo the fight, in a fairly distant position, the frigates will start chasing them.

 

Also, I just wanted to tell you that you can be more "gentle" when proposing ideas; I don't dislike your ideas, but the way you put them.

 

 

 

They do struggle to keep up with fighters, it would be interesting to see if they could be balanced to include a researchable "intercept" ability like the Phoenix-class assault ship or the Kodiak from base Sins, but I think the Devs have said before that having ships with MACs move around more in combat isn't great visually.

You mean, the Intercept ability like the Marathon class?

That would render Fighters useless; more than they already are.

 

To be honest, the analogy is almost completely useless because bombers in the halo universe get way closer then they do in the real world.

Source?

[Riftis]

You mean, the Intercept ability like the Marathon class?

That would render Fighters useless; more than they already are.

 

The build I'm playing with doesn't have the Marathon with an intercept ability, it does have the fourth ability grayed out but I assumed this is how the mod handles MACs, the Phoenix from SoTP and the Kodiak from base Sins feature an ability which increases max speed and acceleration.

[Solemn Penance]

 

 

Source?

I'm not going to argue anymore, just research the Tupolev Tu-22 "Backfire" and its tactics against US carrier groups and that should help. Also I'll try to be more delicate next time I pose an idea

[SternuS]

I'm not going to argue anymore, just research the Tupolev Tu-22 "Backfire" and its tactics against US carrier groups and that should help. Also I'll try to be more delicate next time I pose an idea

Uh, well that's a cool aircraft. I couldn't find the point where it compares the distances between it and the bombers in the Halo Universe though.

 

I would appreciate it, thanks.

[Solemn Penance]

http://www.brighthub...les/121953.aspx

This website mentions how, with missiles and radar, Backfires would attack from up to 200 miles out to prevent interception. And, although the article doesn`t say this, the primary weapons against these anti-ship missiles are smaller, anti-air missiles while secondary, short-range protection is provided by fast-firing, rotary cannons (Phalanx CIWs)

[SternuS]

http://www.brighthub...les/121953.aspx

This website mentions how, with missiles and radar, Backfires would attack from up to 200 miles out to prevent interception. And, although the article doesn`t say this, the primary weapons against these anti-ship missiles are smaller, anti-air missiles while secondary, short-range protection is provided by fast-firing, rotary cannons (Phalanx CIWs)

I got that AA missiles are better than cannons. I just don't understand how, from this statement, you can assume Fighters in Halo get closer than IRL.

[Solemn Penance]

Fighters are still big targets. They can't and don't need to get close IRL. Well, for all I know anyway

[Riftis]

You might enjoy this article on space fighters:
http://www.projectrh...cegunexotic.php

Don't let the realism ruin the fun though! But yes, there's no reason for space combat to not be fought at extreme ranges, after factoring in hit percentages and accuracy, especially for the MAC and missile favoring UNSC.

[Bornstellaris]

Honestly, its pretty damn hard to compare fighters in real life bombing stationary or incredibly slow moving targets with the effect of earth gravity, and Longswords fighting against ships that are moving not only a 3D plain, but also at several thousand km/h. Regardless, I don't see the point of comparing the two, especially since there is no hard evidence given in the Halo lore about fighters and distances.