Jump to content

cupakabra

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cupakabra

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sorry, i got some zeros lost, i meant 300000 and 150000. I did direct comparison of 2 planes which did count bomb drops so dunno what you mean by "meaningless in absolute terms". Lancasters needed lesser number of flights (could take twice as many bombs), but has worse death/flight ratio so were worse for direct fight. Second raid on Schweinfurt was a disaster and yet they shot down more numbers than they lost. I'm not saying that they are equal, my "fend off" definition is that attacker is scared to go solo after the target. By overwhelmed i mean like 2 fighters against 1 bomber, where AA defense is weaker and plane is controlled by enemy. Weak fighters couldn't handle tail gunner by their own. They needed anti-gunner approach tactics, or shooting from beyond range technology. Propaganda is that B-17 is one man army type of plane, but the facts are that it was vulnerable but not an easy kill.
  2. B-17 did almost 3000 flights, dropped over 640 000 tons of bombs and lost less than 4750 planes. Lancasters did over 1500 flights, dropped less than 610 000 bombs and lost 3300 planes. It's hard to compare them as Lancasters were made few years later, used by different army in different conditions (at night) but i wouldn't call them much better than B-17. And there were battles where B-17s have proven not being sitting ducks when they were exposed and took heavy losses overall but shot down a lot of enemy fighters. Luftwaffe was having hard time with them and had to develop special tactics to exploit their weaknesses until they developed technological upperhand. So i'd say that B-17s could fend off regular fighters until got overwhelmed by numbers, tactics and technology.
  3. You mean what exactly was wrong?
  4. I didn't ignore him but he missed my point because i more or less agree with him. But if you can buy a ship for 20 points that is worse than a ship for 10 points then this ship is useless no matter what list you put it in. That's why i focus on 1vs1 comparison. In the original post someone have said that if you like the ship you can win any game with it, which i find unfair. If you like **** ship then good for you but **** ship shouldn't be winning. That's why i used example of Ford T- very old but expensive to buy and maintain and still no match for anything modern. If you want to fly old scraps like ARC-170 then be ready for high cost and low effectiveness.
  5. There are things that just ain't match for other things and still are priced high. Would you like to play Need for Speed where player chooses Ford T and is competitive against new Lamborghini?
  6. For me it's how 360 turrets work. Aces try to outmaneuver you to keep you in arc, you just spam them with turrets and try to keep close.
  7. Well here we disagree. What i hear from you is a child demanding reroll while playing Sorry! because it's not fun to have such a bad luck. It's really beyond my understanding why would you like to play the game that doesn't allow you to make mistakes.
  8. What i meant is when you have a TIE Bomber it has low firepower and is big and slow so it's an easy target for x-wing. But when you take big bomber with gunner then it is troublesome for fighters. So here's your quality difference. Simple, regular, cheap ship vs heavy armored, heavy equipped big ship. Another difference of power is regular TIE Bomber vs some old fighter thats too weak to hurt it. In different terrain different ships behave differently. When you use asteroids for your advantage you can take down superior ship easily. Like forcing another ship to choose to hit either the bomb or asteroid.
  9. Not really, look at the B-17s during WW2. Huge powerful planes that could fend-off enemies with firepower and do their job, but very vulnerable when approached correctly. It's all about the players. But well, you have just as many opinions as players. For instance i play x-wing for in-scale beautiful models (so i despise epics other than Gozanti for breaking the scale) and fun with friends, not for chasing meta and winning tournaments.
  10. Define long-range. If you can shoot missiles from beyond fighter's range then you have upperhand. If your size allows you to bring big enough firepower on board then you have upperhand. If you can have special equipment to hurt small craft (say EMP or huge cluster of explosives) and he's not able to dodge or use on his own, you have upperhand.
  11. It's not my intention to argue. I've never played 2.0 and i'm not going to because i've seen ads that sounded like "we'll give equal chances to everyone" and this topic prooved me right. That's all i wanted to say. The rest is just academic discussion. Technological advancement is slow in long-term (KOTOR vs movies) but fast in short term, like z-95 vs x-wings. Or regular TIE vs defender. In 1.0 you can take 100 points and turn it into 20-points worth fleet, so when you go against well-built fleet you should have extremely small chances of winning from the beginning. Is it a bad thing?
  12. Well, you're absolutely right. I have zero interest in big chunks of Star Wars and clone wars is one of them so gave you my sources so you can contest them and you did. So it makes my k-wing argument invalid- it's just bad design.
  13. It depends on the situation- who he fights and where he fights (location of asteroids). Your question is of sort: "who's better rpg- tank or healer?"
  14. According to this http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/BTL-S8_K-wing_assault_starfighter: "K-wing carried an unusually large arsenal for a vessel of its size. The hull had a total of 18 hard points, five on each upper wing and four on each lower wing, to allow technicians to arm the ship with a large variety of weapons including flechétte and concussion missiles, proton and other sublight torpedoes, thermal and other inertial bombs, small space mines, and T-33 plasma torpedoes. When attacked by enemy fighters, the K-wing could return fire with a short-range quad turbolaser turret with multi-stage lasers located at the fore and a medium-range twin laser cannon turret mounted on the top of its command module. Also, the K-wing could be outfitted with slugthrower cannons on the hardpoints for additional short-range firepower."
  15. I think you miss the point. What if FFG decided that they will make ISD the same size as x-wing and give it more or less the same firepower and survivability? Would you still go "it's science fiction fantasy, it's just a boardgame, i want to play competitive match of ISD vs single x-wing"? Bombers are built for bombing and bombing is not part of dogfight, so putting bombers in dogfight game is nice for playing scenarios but pointless in competitive dogfighting.
×
×
  • Create New...