The template actually looks cool but having the same rough shape for three ships straight isn't ermm, inspiring.
Challenger = Chieftain = Crusader, Krait = Python... What's the point?
- Thread starter Winegums
- Start date
-
- Tags
- lessshipsplease necro
The template actually looks cool but having the same rough shape for three ships straight isn't ermm, inspiring.
Except the differences are more than just cosmetic, ergo the OP's position is riddled with inaccuracies and flaws.
Don't you dare compare a Krait to a Python, you yellow-bellied twit.
Jokes aside, I've never "moved" over to the krait. I kept my python for mission running, and bought a Krait for hunting 'Goids. A job I think does much better than the Python. Get your perspectives checked, boi.
Jokes aside, I've never "moved" over to the krait. I kept my python for mission running, and bought a Krait for hunting 'Goids. A job I think does much better than the Python. Get your perspectives checked, boi.
Except the differences are more than just cosmetic, ergo the OP's position is riddled with inaccuracies and flaws.
Yeah I know though I find them too similar in practical terms as well, as I've seen, the biggest difference between the Crusader & the Chieftain is the SLF support, other than that I know that they have the same cargo space though one of the slots is split between them, in weapons the Chieftain is slightly better as instead of one of the mediums, the Chieftain has one large. All the core modules slots are exactly the same.
The same can be said pretty much of a lot of vessels that can be legitimately considered the same rough class (or at least price range).
The different weapon layouts, hardpoint sizes, and optional loadout capabilities are the main distinguishing factors between ships. Core modules tend to only really vary when you shift in general class of hull. You may as well complain that the Corvette is the same as Anaconda, or the Viper Mk III is the same as the Cobra Mk III (or Viper Mk IV), etc.
The general line of thought of yourself and the OP is fundamentally flawed IMO.
Ultimately though, it does not matter if specific individuals find them too similar - there are plenty more of us that appreciate the differences.
Last edited:
None of those have the exact same core modules nor the same cargo space.
Neither do the Crusader, Chieftain, or Challenger.
Just to clarify (I actually meant the Cobra MkIII) but I suggest you look more closely at the ships I highlighted as their core and optional internals are more similar than you think.
Neither do the Crusader, Chieftain, or Challenger.
The Crusader & Chieftain do, I bet you a rep.
Python ? <spits>.
The Crusader and Chieftain do not have the same optional internals, the Crusader swaps a class 4 for 2 class 3's and adds SLF capability to the mix. On top of that the weapon hardpoints are somewhat different. Hardly minor or insignificant differences.
Also I suggest you look more closely at the similarities of the ships I highlighted earlier.
Certain core mods are a funny thing in Elite. Their performance is heavily dependent on the hull their placed on. So while they all have Class 6 Thrusters, a Chieftain 6A thruster != a Challenger 6A thruster != a Crusader 6A thruster.
FSDs are mass dependent, so different hull masses assure different performances.
PDs are the same but hardpoint configs are not, making distro draw needs variable.
And the option of a fighter bay is limited to one, so...
To be fair, they both have 120T max cargo total. But that's an observation with limited relevance since you're likely not making a cargo centric fit with these ships.
Last edited:
Not entirely true - you can run with a Class 6 SLF Bay (2 SLF variants) and Class 5 shields (c/f stock configuration) though personally it would not be my first choice.
One as in one hull of the 3, not one bay. My Crussader has a class 6 SLF.
Ok, thanks for clarifying that point.
That was kind of my point - when you kit out a Cobra Mk III and a Viper Mk IV as true multi-role vessels they have the same effective cargo capacity 16T without compromising features. Of course they are not the same either but the same reasoning the OP and perhaps some others are using is equally applicable. Similarly the Anaconda and the Corvette have identical Core internals yet other differences make them sufficiently distinct from each other.
With the FDS/FAS, they also have identical internals - the FGS has beefed up PD and Sensors (compared with the FAS/FDS) but also is somewhat more expensive.
I view the Challenger/Chieftain/Crusader as one good ship with three hull variations. I like them but I fly them less because they look like a crapping dog when they land and that bugs me.
I love my Challenger, but your crapping dog observation is hilariously apt
Make sure to scrape it along the landing pad to clean off those dingleberries.
fwiw, I ignored Flowey a while ago and my forums experience is a lot less full of garbage posts.
edit: I ignored you too Derp.
Neither do the Crusader, Chieftain, or Challenger.
Just to clarify (I actually meant the Cobra MkIII) but I suggest you look more closely at the ships I highlighted as their core and optional internals are more similar than you think.
fwiw, I ignored Flowey a while ago and my forums experience is a lot less full of garbage posts.
edit: I ignored you too Derp.
Last edited:
Pay close attention to what I said, they have the same cargo space.
Also, the rest of the characteristics I already knew about them.
Indeed I'm aware of that, the deal here is that the hull weight varies by 100 Tons.
For PDs they aren't dependant on hull, each ship seems to have an associated boost capacity number, I realized this when engineering my AspX.