If you only need a couple of Arrester IIIs the ship makes no difference for VLRT and LRT.
You can't launch more than 4 missiles at a time, regardless of how many tubes you have.
I flew something I shouldn't have.
- Thread starter Richard Bong
- Start date
You can't launch more than 4 missiles at a time, regardless of how many tubes you have.
Southern_Cross_07
Commander
I reacted to the fact that the Inferno was a missile platform (which surprised me), I thought it just had a big gun, but it had the whole package
I don't think the biggest missile platform will win, as I was also factoring in Master Modes, which will probably wreck MIS Freelancer.
Master Modes for escorts, the Inferno, Talon Shrike we in my view good ships for this.
I also mentioned the fastest missiles in each category, which means that even if you have more missiles, some ships (my beloved 400i) would be about to Outrun 50% (clarification - IR missiles of Size 2's are Slower in speed).
I didn't think about the Fury MX because of the lack of QT drive, which would be needed for an escort vehicle.
The scenario would be : 2 escorts and 2 prizes (transport ships) vs an attacker (s). Corrections below - at what distances between the groups.
The big gotcha is the with Master Modes with Nav modes, you can do Max speeds, but engagement will start at SCM speeds.
My Question is this: QT Snares are 20Kms at the moment, will mean that the Missile game play will start at the 15Km-10Km ranges?
It's feeling like the Expanse in some sense: Far away is Missile gameplay and close quarters will be guns?
This could mean that if you are QT in snare, the 2 groups may not be close to each other, and the Prize could Nav burn the other way, and the Escorts will engage? Will missile gameplay happen then? When both ship groups, at SCM (closing a 15Km distance will be slow or even delayed) - getting close enough for Guns, is going to take 30 seconds to a few minutes. This could mean that the MIS Freelancer, could Missile boat from the distance.
NOTE: This assumes that CIG will have the QT Snare pull target out of QT about 20km - 10km from the attacker? If they get pulled out at 5K, there's no time to react. What will CIG decide. I digress again.
The main idea of the Ares ships is a "smaller", single seat fighter, designed for taking out much larger ships. They are not supposed to do well against light or even medium fighters. Their role is to go after ships that are Hammerhead size and up. Those ships would have a hard time hitting an Ares, but the Ares' big gun could pummel the larger ships shields and armor.
My understanding is that torpedoes, and missiles in general, still have an accuracy issue. That and most of the torpedo ships I see are multi-crew, so if you need to take out a larger ship on your own, you will have difficulty with one of those.
My understanding is that torpedoes, and missiles in general, still have an accuracy issue. That and most of the torpedo ships I see are multi-crew, so if you need to take out a larger ship on your own, you will have difficulty with one of those.
I never consider anything without a Quantum Drive, other than a Bike, worth anything. So, I agree, the Fury isn't right for the job.I reacted to the fact that the Inferno was a missile platform (which surprised me), I thought it just had a big gun, but it had the whole package
I don't think the biggest missile platform will win, as I was also factoring in Master Modes, which will probably wreck MIS Freelancer.
Master Modes for escorts, the Inferno, Talon Shrike we in my view good ships for this.
I also mentioned the fastest missiles in each category, which means that even if you have more missiles, some ships (my beloved 400i) would be about to Outrun 50% (clarification - IR missiles of Size 2's are Slower in speed).
I didn't think about the Fury MX because of the lack of QT drive, which would be needed for an escort vehicle.
The scenario would be : 2 escorts and 2 prizes (transport ships) vs an attacker (s). Corrections below - at what distances between the groups.
The big gotcha is the with Master Modes with Nav modes, you can do Max speeds, but engagement will start at SCM speeds.
My Question is this: QT Snares are 20Kms at the moment, will mean that the Missile game play will start at the 15Km-10Km ranges?
It's feeling like the Expanse in some sense: Far away is Missile gameplay and close quarters will be guns?
This could mean that if you are QT in snare, the 2 groups may not be close to each other, and the Prize could Nav burn the other way, and the Escorts will engage? Will missile gameplay happen then? When both ship groups, at SCM (closing a 15Km distance will be slow or even delayed) - getting close enough for Guns, is going to take 30 seconds to a few minutes. This could mean that the MIS Freelancer, could Missile boat from the distance.
NOTE: This assumes that CIG will have the QT Snare pull target out of QT about 20km - 10km from the attacker? If they get pulled out at 5K, there's no time to react. What will CIG decide. I digress again.
View attachment 25230
The bigger the missile the longer the minimum range. The only missile size (at least before my current time playing, I haven't checked in a couple of years) that works in gun range is Size 1. The problem, since we have "Missile Mode," is that switching between gun and missile is a PITA.
My understanding is the only change "Master Modes" really makes is it severely restricts combat at higher than what is currently (equivalent to) SCM speed. Longer ranges will still be missles.
For escort missions you generally want something that isn't stealth (deterrence is half the mission) has a good weapon mix (missiles and guns) and can take a hit.
Your layered defense is the right way to think.
Depending on what you're protecting, expected resistance and distance being traveled:
Vanguards are likely the first flight to add.
If you have an Escort Carrier, then a flight of Hornets is likely your next choice, though Arrows or Gladius (Gladii?) is another alternative.
Scorpius (Scorpii?) or Hurricanes, with enough pads on your escort carrier, might make a decent alternative to Vanguards.
If you're expecting something big and nasty, you might want to add a flight of Ares but they are a bit limited as to targets and a Persesus might be a better choice.
Right now, as an Escort, the Hammerhead is pretty useless, because of gun ranges. It is to easy to go around a Hammerhead.
And I don't consider snares or mines to be very effective in the vastness of space.
Southern_Cross_07
Commander
CIG - Hold My Beer
They really want WWII in space
What CR wants is Hollywood Space Opera in a game.
World War II, only in an extreme Hollywood interpretation.
The whole close range, long lasting, 1 v 1 dogfights was never a thing in World War 2. Your target usually went down in a single burst of machinegun fire. In fact the Thach Weave worked because an accurate burst from a Wildcat's 50 cals in a headon pass, at full speed, would down a Zero.
2 years before the Thach Weave proved effective at Midway, Mallory's "Big Wing" worked in the battle of Britain and, effectively, ended single combat duels, over a year before the US entered the war.
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
That’s true. Both George Lucas and Chris Robert’s are aware that airborne turrets were ineffective in WWII. The only useful defense for Bombers from fighters was other fighters. Turrets virtually never shot down fighters. Even the super advanced remote turrets of the B29 (the most expensive defense project of the war), never killed many fighters.
The P51 is widely heralded as the best fighter of the war and indeed it was great, but it’s most significant contribution was because of its extended range. It was the first and only allied fighter able to escort bombers on their complete journey from Britain to Germany and back. You can look at the death rates on allied bomber crews and they drop from horrific—the most dangerous form of service Americans ever saw—to relatively safe, from the day the P51 entered the battlefield. Strange as it seems, range trumps most other specs in situations like that and SC is being set up to emulate this.
This is why I generally favor the Vanguard, Arrow and Fury for various tasks. Small deck footprint for short range tasks off mobile platforms, or large range from bases, are going to be significant figures of merit.
I’m not certain stealth has no place in escort. Certainly in the real world seeing escorts is a deterrent. However in a game where players time needs to deliver entertainment more than it needs to protect assets and win, many bushwhackers are going to attack regardless of escort, so hiding your escort will be valuable in surprise on your opponent. The best deterrent is likely going to be giving them a good thrashing so they don’t keep coming back. Stealth can contribute to that especially using missiles against AI.
Last edited:
Considering the Sweinfurt-Regensberg mission, where 60 B-17 were lost, due to a combination of Fighters and Flak. In that mission 38 Luftwaffe fighters were lost, according to German records, with 21 more damaged. That tends to question the claim that bomber guns and gunners were ineffective.
As for the P-51, that claim is bandied about, but the only real measure is how it performed in combat. The top 10 scoring US aces, only one flew the Mustang. One and two flew P-38, three flew the F6F, 4 and 5 flew the P-47, 6 flew the P-38, 7, 8 and 9 were tied with 26 victories, a P-51 and 2 F4Us and number 10 flew an F4U.
Given that, the P-51 looked good on paper, but wouldn't be my first choice.
By the way, once Charles Linburgh made his recomendations ln adjustments to the P-38, the P-38 had an 1100 mile combat radius compared to the 700 mile combat radius (1000 mile in the Pacific) of the P-51.
I stand by the idea that stealth doesn't make for good escorts. I want the threat focused on the escort. That's the job of an escort.
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
The P38 had a combat radius of 450 miles until the end of the war when 1,100 gallon drop tanks were added.
If you’re going to compare fighters keep in mind the difference between deck based and land based. The P38 did really well in the Pacific when the fight was in Southeast Asia where the Allies had lots of bases. Up North we had to use Corsairs off decks.
You’re free to decide whatever you like about the best fighter of WWII. I like the P38 too. It’s a terrible shame they didn’t give it drop tanks from the start. Placing the guns in the nose gave the P38 enormous range to its guns because they didn’t have the parallax of a fighter with wing mounted guns. Wing mounted guns are set to converge at a specific distance and past that they’re ineffective. (This doesn’t happen in SC because even fixed mounts are gimbled slightly and have a computer assist.) Nose mounted guns have by comparison an enormous kill zone. This was a major contributor to the fighter’s effectiveness, though you will not find this in the basic stats. (Players in SC never see this distinction between center mounted and wing mounted guns, because fixed guns gimbal sufficient to emulate center mounted.)
The P61 Black Widow is another favorite of mine with centrally mounted guns and a turret. I think this is what the Vanguard is modeled after. The Widow was famous for its air to air radar, which made it able to hunt at night.
As to deterrence, my observation is that one of the salient differences between real life and the game is resource management. The Allies won WWII primarily because of their industrial might. We were able to produce things like planes in astonishing numbers. That isn’t going to matter in SC because destroyed ships are always replaced. Having fun is literally going to trump winning battles. Players will certainly want to win, but probably more importantly they will want to play. Repeatedly killing them dead is likely the only way to stop them attacking. You have to repeatedly show them they can’t win in a given scenario until they decide something else is more fun.
As per this discussion of missile platforms, they do benefit greatly from stealth. The MIS has a pretty awesome payload, and if it stays undetected, it can rain down death across the battlefield with both pairs of S3 against fighters, and a couple hex shots against larger targets. That’s pretty dope. Given the MIS can provide extra beds to ships like the Lib, I think it’s going to have a place, and it would not if it didn’t have some stealth. It’s just too easy to kill for a conventional fighter.
On the stealth issue, let me suggest stealth pilots try this trick. Turn off your retro thrusters in combat.
Ships like the Sabre don’t require you shut down systems like shields and weapons to sneak in combat. They’re meant to disappear again and again so they can maneuver behind an enemy and get a shot.
Retro thrusters are what provides most coupled behavior in order to make flying easier. They typically produce twice the EM of a maneuvering thruster. There are almost always 2, so shutting them down should reduce your EM signature about equal to shutting down 4 maneuvering thrusters. So for instance, the Sabre typically has an EM of 5400 but with retro’s off it is 4700. That’s a large reduction in signature and range where you can be detected.
Shutting down your Panthers when you’re maneuvering for a missile shot will knock your EM down to 3600. Try Voice Attack. Arrestor IIIs need just 3 seconds to kill from 4km.
Also, flying Industrial A coolers greatly enhances your ability to enter stealth after a hard burn. Fly Ultraflows and practice reentering stealth after a hot maneuver.
So far as I am aware, stealth is still fubar as all ships sensors have S3 range. That is great if you don’t fly stealth and you’re in a fighter. CIG is going to have to reinstitute the size coefficient for sensors sooner or later and regardless of their eventual solution, learning stealth now helps every pilot—even those who don’t use stealth.
If you’re going to compare fighters keep in mind the difference between deck based and land based. The P38 did really well in the Pacific when the fight was in Southeast Asia where the Allies had lots of bases. Up North we had to use Corsairs off decks.
You’re free to decide whatever you like about the best fighter of WWII. I like the P38 too. It’s a terrible shame they didn’t give it drop tanks from the start. Placing the guns in the nose gave the P38 enormous range to its guns because they didn’t have the parallax of a fighter with wing mounted guns. Wing mounted guns are set to converge at a specific distance and past that they’re ineffective. (This doesn’t happen in SC because even fixed mounts are gimbled slightly and have a computer assist.) Nose mounted guns have by comparison an enormous kill zone. This was a major contributor to the fighter’s effectiveness, though you will not find this in the basic stats. (Players in SC never see this distinction between center mounted and wing mounted guns, because fixed guns gimbal sufficient to emulate center mounted.)
The P61 Black Widow is another favorite of mine with centrally mounted guns and a turret. I think this is what the Vanguard is modeled after. The Widow was famous for its air to air radar, which made it able to hunt at night.
As to deterrence, my observation is that one of the salient differences between real life and the game is resource management. The Allies won WWII primarily because of their industrial might. We were able to produce things like planes in astonishing numbers. That isn’t going to matter in SC because destroyed ships are always replaced. Having fun is literally going to trump winning battles. Players will certainly want to win, but probably more importantly they will want to play. Repeatedly killing them dead is likely the only way to stop them attacking. You have to repeatedly show them they can’t win in a given scenario until they decide something else is more fun.
As per this discussion of missile platforms, they do benefit greatly from stealth. The MIS has a pretty awesome payload, and if it stays undetected, it can rain down death across the battlefield with both pairs of S3 against fighters, and a couple hex shots against larger targets. That’s pretty dope. Given the MIS can provide extra beds to ships like the Lib, I think it’s going to have a place, and it would not if it didn’t have some stealth. It’s just too easy to kill for a conventional fighter.
On the stealth issue, let me suggest stealth pilots try this trick. Turn off your retro thrusters in combat.
Ships like the Sabre don’t require you shut down systems like shields and weapons to sneak in combat. They’re meant to disappear again and again so they can maneuver behind an enemy and get a shot.
Retro thrusters are what provides most coupled behavior in order to make flying easier. They typically produce twice the EM of a maneuvering thruster. There are almost always 2, so shutting them down should reduce your EM signature about equal to shutting down 4 maneuvering thrusters. So for instance, the Sabre typically has an EM of 5400 but with retro’s off it is 4700. That’s a large reduction in signature and range where you can be detected.
Shutting down your Panthers when you’re maneuvering for a missile shot will knock your EM down to 3600. Try Voice Attack. Arrestor IIIs need just 3 seconds to kill from 4km.
Also, flying Industrial A coolers greatly enhances your ability to enter stealth after a hard burn. Fly Ultraflows and practice reentering stealth after a hot maneuver.
So far as I am aware, stealth is still fubar as all ships sensors have S3 range. That is great if you don’t fly stealth and you’re in a fighter. CIG is going to have to reinstitute the size coefficient for sensors sooner or later and regardless of their eventual solution, learning stealth now helps every pilot—even those who don’t use stealth.
Last edited:
Operation Vengence was in April of 1943. Round trip was 1100 miles, plus combat in the middle and the mission was flown at low level, which isn't the most fuel efficeint way to fly. At the time the P-38, was the only aircraft with the range to do the job.
It isn't that you can't fly stealth aircraft to fight other ships, or that there is some secret to it. Conducting offensive operations, ambushes, strike missions, those are ideal missions for stealth aircraft.
For escort, that isn't the mission. The mission is to protect your charges, not let them attack your charges so you can conduct an ambush.
For escort missions you want the enemy to pay attention to the escorts. You want them worried about the fighters so your charges can get away. Your primary mission is not to kill attackers, but to get the escorted ships out of the area unharmed. For escort missions you are there to draw off an attacking force, to force the attackers to deal with you first. You are there to be seen.
Last edited:
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
“Due to the high rate of engine failures, Jimmy Doolittle, then commander of the 8th Air Force, decided to pull the P-38 out of Europe. After P-51 Mustangs replaced the Lightning, the kill ratio went from 1.5: 1 to 7:1.“
Doesn’t mean the P38 was a lesser fighter but certainly Jimmy Doolittle thought so.
The lack of high altitude use was really a consequence of the fact bombing from high altitude was almost never effective. Despite Allies great investment in high tech bomb sights, high altitude bombing put far too little ordinance on target. If you’ll recall even at the very end of the war in Japan, the bombers came in very low in order to strike their targets.
I’m not certain but I think the exception was the incineration of Tokyo, where they simply set the civilian areas surrounding the city aflame and created a firestorm chimney effect, a circle that burned toward the center killing even more people than the nukes did.
Not a proud day for America, but it didn’t risk American lives the same way low altitude precision bombing did.
Doesn’t mean the P38 was a lesser fighter but certainly Jimmy Doolittle thought so.
The lack of high altitude use was really a consequence of the fact bombing from high altitude was almost never effective. Despite Allies great investment in high tech bomb sights, high altitude bombing put far too little ordinance on target. If you’ll recall even at the very end of the war in Japan, the bombers came in very low in order to strike their targets.
I’m not certain but I think the exception was the incineration of Tokyo, where they simply set the civilian areas surrounding the city aflame and created a firestorm chimney effect, a circle that burned toward the center killing even more people than the nukes did.
Not a proud day for America, but it didn’t risk American lives the same way low altitude precision bombing did.
The P-38 mission
Higher altitude means lower wind resistance, and generally longer range. In Operation Vengeance the trip was made at low altitude to avoid radar.
BTW Operation Vengeance was a Fighter strike mission to kill Admiral Yamamoto. It was carried out with 16 P-38s and made possible by very accurate intelligence due to the US breaking the Japanese codes.
Don't get me wrong, if I was to pick a fighter for WWI Europe it wouldn't be either the P-51 or the P-38. I choose the Jug.
Gabby Gabreski, on one of his sorties, took the entire ammunition supply from an FW-190 after getting jumped and made it home. (Top European Theater US Ace and a jet fighter Ace in Korea.)
As far as accuracy by USAAF daylight raids in Europe the results are argued all across the internet. I've seen BDA images that show extreme accuracy to reports of less thana 20% landing within 1000 feet of the target (The usual standard was, for the day, 33% of the ordinance landed within 1000 feet of the aiming point.). Allot was dependent on weather, cloud cover, the technique used on that mission (There were several different techniques through out the war), etc.
My grandfather flew B-26's and was the group flight surgeon during WWII. He didn't make it home and I never met him, so that caused me to have a fascination with that aspect of the war.
The Germans called the P-38 the Twin Tailed Devil. Jimmy Doolittle called the P-38 "the sweetest flying plane in the sky." The main problem with the P-38 was it was a complex aircraft especially for rookie pilots with only 25 hours in type. The P-38 served in Europe from the US Army Air Corps arrival in Europe until the end of the war, they just weren't in the 8th Air Force the entire war.
Higher altitude means lower wind resistance, and generally longer range. In Operation Vengeance the trip was made at low altitude to avoid radar.
BTW Operation Vengeance was a Fighter strike mission to kill Admiral Yamamoto. It was carried out with 16 P-38s and made possible by very accurate intelligence due to the US breaking the Japanese codes.
Don't get me wrong, if I was to pick a fighter for WWI Europe it wouldn't be either the P-51 or the P-38. I choose the Jug.
Gabby Gabreski, on one of his sorties, took the entire ammunition supply from an FW-190 after getting jumped and made it home. (Top European Theater US Ace and a jet fighter Ace in Korea.)
As far as accuracy by USAAF daylight raids in Europe the results are argued all across the internet. I've seen BDA images that show extreme accuracy to reports of less thana 20% landing within 1000 feet of the target (The usual standard was, for the day, 33% of the ordinance landed within 1000 feet of the aiming point.). Allot was dependent on weather, cloud cover, the technique used on that mission (There were several different techniques through out the war), etc.
My grandfather flew B-26's and was the group flight surgeon during WWII. He didn't make it home and I never met him, so that caused me to have a fascination with that aspect of the war.
Last edited:
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
I recall watching an episode of 12 O’clock High with my father when I was very young. During the episode he gasped “the Norden bombsite”. My father flew on a recon wing out of Japan during the Korean conflict as an instruments specialist. It sounded like he was remembering something sacred, and thirty years later I looked it up.
The bombsites they had were very good, but the fact is when you drop a bomb through 20k feet of air it blows all over. Unless you guide it, it’s never going to be what we call “accurate” by today’s standards. Now we not only have guided missiles and bombs, but guided artillery, grenades and bullets. Makes for far fewer civilian casualties.
If you have an abiding interest in WWII, make sure you get you some VDH.
View: https://youtu.be/EUELed7UuDQ?si=js0gx93fNABkeg_X
The bombsites they had were very good, but the fact is when you drop a bomb through 20k feet of air it blows all over. Unless you guide it, it’s never going to be what we call “accurate” by today’s standards. Now we not only have guided missiles and bombs, but guided artillery, grenades and bullets. Makes for far fewer civilian casualties.
If you have an abiding interest in WWII, make sure you get you some VDH.
Last edited:
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
While pondering the best fighter issue I was reminded of the ME262, the first jet engines and the revolution they created. For those interested in such revolutions in propulsion and the sweeping changes they cause, let me point your attention to the new precooler being fitted to our best engines that it turning them into combined cycle Mach 5 engines. The next decade is going to see a dozen new aircraft designed to go hypersonic—something no one in the field thought feasible a decade ago. It’s happening now with Hermeus and Quarterhorse.
View: https://youtu.be/uWf8zq8aHnc?si=eLjqRhwLjK8PbDuk
Looks impressive! If you'll excuse an off-topic aside, I wonder why Military Times/Sightline Media used a fairly obviously computer-voiced narration, and decided it was good enough to publish? It probably wouldn't please Hermeus that they did that on the cheap.
I don't necessarily object per se to computer voices reading a script (and occasionally pausing in the wrong place or emphasizing the wrong part of a sentence in a way that makes no sense). I understand not every company can afford a presenter, or professional voice actor to narrate their script. But that video is six months old and the voiceover is so sloppily done. It seems inauthentic somehow, for a product of a fairly big specialist media group. Odd.
Hey TESTies, just wanna circle back to this, and please excuse my ignorance, as I’ve been out of country on deployment since April and just got home a few weeks ago, so I’m not up to snuff on the latest and greatest SC changes.
I’ve seen “master modes” referred to a number of times recently, and again here. I thought it may be a new form of Arena Commander, but from what I’m gleaning, it has something to do with travel and combat.
From Reddit:
“Master Modes groups sets of components together, so that when you're in one mode, you can't use components tied to the other mode(s).
So the 'standard' mode will be for combat - SCM speeds, shields, weapons, counter-measures, and so on are available, but Quantum Drive will be disabled, and thrusters will be configured for maneuvering rather than top speed.
Quantum mode will allow you to use Quantum drive (and the new Quantum Boost for short hops in the 30k-100k km distances), but will disable weapons, shields, and counter-measures.
We mostly got a high-level overview of the concept, not the specifics of the implementation, because they're implementing it for SQ42 first, and then they'll bring it to the PU... at which point, they'll probably have to tweak it a fair bit, to reflect the differences in gameplay between SQ42 (single player, AI won't complain about balance, etc) and SC (multiplayer, people will be very vocal about balance - perceived or actual).”
This post is a year old (so apparently I wasn’t keeping up on SC stuff and things before I left, lol) so does this still stand? And has it been implemented?
Cheers, and thanks in advance,
Owl
Yep that's the scope of it. It's cigs attempt to force close dog fighting engagements while allowing for two different travel speeds.
This might make a few of you have a good chuckle, but whenever I'm reading something something that pertains to the military, the voice in my head switches to people that remind me of the military, such as Ronald Lee Ermey. So when this vid started talking about how the USAF was partially behind this effort, the back of my mind wanted to switch to his voice. RIP Gunny
CIG introduced the concept a year ago as almost ready for us. It got brought up at this years Citizen Con as almost ready for us, and put it into an "experimental mode" in Arena Commander.
"Master modes" is the latest effort to force slower and closer combat.
Essentially, yes, in combat you will be stuck around SCM speed, and if you go above that (which will require use of the Quantum Drive and, I suppose, a different "mode") you get no guns, missiles or shields.