Horizons Should the large ships have larger weapons and not just more?

My previous thread

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/286238-Shouldn-t-the-large-ships-have-more-weapons

I thought the large ships should be riddled in weapons but now im thinking, should they have bigger weapons and not just more?



CWfJYtK.jpg



This picture of the Cutter especially proves my point... so much space yet such a tiny weapon

comments?

edit: fixed the pic
 
Last edited:
In the real world, 'small' weapons serve a specific purpose. Anti-personnel, for instance or being better at shooting up speedboats. You don't use, say, an anti-ship missile launcher for that or the new upcoming railgun technology.

In this game, however, that doesn't seem to matter. The larger the weapon, the more damage it inflicts. You can use any 'class' of the same weapon and they all do the same thing. So, in that respect, as there's no other difference, you might as well simply have them being able to load bigger weapons.

This was why many of us found the decision to give the Federal Corvette those two tiny hardpoints such a bizarre thing. It seemed like they should have be two medium hard-points, instead. Smalls served no real purpose on a ship of that size.

Hopefully, FD will eventually make missiles and torpedoes as lethal as they should be. Then we can have turrets or vertical launch systems for shooting out dozens of them at a time, just like real warships do. Right now, swarming huge Anaconda-class ships with small fighters, like vultures, tot ear them up is a completely viable strategy. In the real world, this wouldn't happen: It's what the Iranians hope to do against the US Navy, but they'd never be successful because there'd be dozens, if not hundreds, of missiles all heading their way at long range (not just from the ship, itself, but its escorts and on-board helicopters).

So, if we get anti-fighter missile turrets and/or VLS cells, a flight of Vultures or Vipers would have very little chance against a true warship. They'd have to learn proper tactics and band up with other types of craft. Again, just like in reality... And a lot more fun and rewarding, as a result! Even better if we can change the configuration and type of each missile rack, so that they can be specialised for different purposes. Those of us who remember the old flight sims, like 'F-19' and the 'Jane's US Navy Fighters', will remember how deciding on different load-outs could be a lot more fun than it might seem, because you were rewarded with optimal results if you tailored them right (and, of course, just get average results if you didn't want to be fussed and went with the default load, instead). In fact, I seem to remember 'TIE Fighter' and the various 'Wing Commander' games doing that, too! It always made you feel like you had more control over the assignment ahead.

Right now, combat in ED is very arcade-like and dumbed-down. Just look at ECM! :) The hype for the product makes a big deal about how you're free to do as you please, so long as you take account of consequences, but actual combat is the one area where that philosophy breaks down easily. If reality were like ED, you could take on an aircraft carrier with a speedboat - and not only get back to port, but win! Giving us the kind of options above would force players to pick their battles more wisely.
 
Last edited:
In the real world, 'small' weapons serve a specific purpose. Anti-personnel, for instance or being better at shooting up speedboats. You don't use, say, an anti-ship missile launcher for that or the new upcoming railgun technology.

In this game, however, that doesn't seem to matter. The larger the weapon, the more damage it inflicts. You can use any 'class' of the same weapon and they all do the same thing. So, in that respect, as there's no other difference, you might as well simply have them being able to load bigger weapons.

This was why many of us found the decision to give the Federal Corvette those two tiny hardpoints such a bizarre thing. It seemed like they should have be two medium hard-points, instead. Smalls served no real purpose on a ship of that size.

Hopefully, FD will eventually make missiles and torpedoes as lethal as they should be. Then we can have turrets or vertical launch systems for shooting out dozens of them at a time, just like real warships do. Right now, swarming huge Anaconda-class ships with small fighters, like vultures, tot ear them up is a completely viable strategy. In the real world, this wouldn't happen: It's what the Iranians hope to do against the US Navy, but they'd never be successful because there'd be dozens, if not hundreds, of missiles all heading their way at long range (not just from the ship, itself, but its escorts and on-board helicopters).

So, if we get anti-fighter missile turrets and/or VLS cells, a flight of Vultures or Vipers would have very little chance against a true warship. They'd have to learn proper tactics and band up with other types of craft. Again, just like in reality... And a lot more fun and rewarding, as a result! Even better if we can change the configuration and type of each missile rack, so that they can be specialised for different purposes. Those of us who remember the old flight sims, like 'F-19' and the 'Jane's US Navy Fighters', will remember how deciding on different load-outs could be a lot more fun than it might seem, because you were rewarded with optimal results if you tailored them right (and, of course, just get average results if you didn't want to be fussed and went with the default load, instead). In fact, I seem to remember 'TIE Fighter' and the various 'Wing Commander' games doing that, too! It always made you feel like you had more control over the assignment ahead.

Right now, combat in ED is very arcade-like and dumbed-down. Just look at ECM! :) The hype for the product makes a big deal about how you're free to do as you please, so long as you take account of consequences, but actual combat is the one area where that philosophy breaks down easily. If reality were like ED, you could take on an aircraft carrier with a speedboat - and not only get back to port, but win! Giving us the kind of options above would force players to pick their battles more wisely.

ever tried large turretts or huge gimbals on an eagke target? "So, in that respect, as there's no other difference" then" ... tracking speed.
 
In the real world smaller gun systems track faster (depending on intended use) than bigger ones. For instance a 16 gun turret turns slower than a 5 inch mount which turns slower than a CIWS 20mm Gatling gun. Yes, it would take multiple torpedoes to sink a battleship and much less to sink a destroyer and most aircraft would be shot down with one missile. And 16 inch rounds do more damage then a 5 inch and have a longer range. IN THE REAL WORLD...

But this isn't "THE REAL WORLD" and if you attempted to have it that way only a few would stick around for very long if every time they went out they had no chance to win. This is a game... It has to have a balance to it so everyone has a chance. That means no "I WIN" weapons. I admit the game is now unbalanced, see the numerous threads one the heat meta, ect...

If you want realism, how about you go on patrols every day and see nothing... Or you sit around on the pad waiting to be scrambled... For hours! And when you do get scrambled to intercept, it will be some trader who is lost and forgot to use his comms... Exciting? No, but realistic.

Sorry, I prefer to play a game and I like reasonable odds on winning... If the game gets anymore toward the pay-to-win magic, I'm gone.
 
Last edited:
Who says attempts at realism can't be fun? :) I listed how 'TIE Fighter' and the 'Wing Commander' games did this kind of stuff wayyyyy back in the 1990s. They were more fun for including it, not less - mostly because they allowed the user to have more diversity in their options for accomplishing a given goal (or to just leave things as default if they couldn't be bothered). In fact, they became outright classics in their own right and for good reason.

ever tried large turretts or huge gimbals on an eagke target? "So, in that respect, as there's no other difference" then" ... tracking speed.

Turrets definitely have a much bigger problem than gimballed weapons do with tracking, because the developers admitted putting unnecessary artificial handicaps on them. It's basically the ED way of trying to reflect how ships in sci-fi (such as Star Destroyers) are generally inept. In reality, the best way to counter such things is by countermeasures and electronic warfare.

Unfortunately, the ED version of ECM is an arcade-like EMP weapon (and ECCM is non-existent for that exact same reason).
 
Hopefully, FD will eventually make missiles and torpedoes as lethal as they should be. Then we can have turrets or vertical launch systems for shooting out dozens of them at a time, just like real warships do. Right now, swarming huge Anaconda-class ships with small fighters, like vultures, tot ear them up is a completely viable strategy. In the real world, this wouldn't happen: It's what the Iranians hope to do against the US Navy, but they'd never be successful because there'd be dozens, if not hundreds, of missiles all heading their way at long range (not just from the ship, itself, but its escorts and on-board helicopters).
If you're making real world comparisons then different approaches have been differently viable at different times, 1000 years in the future isn't going to be analagous to now any more than it would be to 100 years ago, when big gun capital ships were the key units in a naval fleet. Nowdays submarines and aircraft carriers matter more (of which there aren't any real ED equivalents).
 
If you're making real world comparisons then different approaches have been differently viable at different times, 1000 years in the future isn't going to be analagous to now any more than it would be to 100 years ago, when big gun capital ships were the key units in a naval fleet. Nowdays submarines and aircraft carriers matter more (of which there aren't any real ED equivalents).

That's relevancy of platform, though, not relevancy of weapon systems. There are reasons a battleship would be much more easily countered in the oceans of today, but the weapons it carries would be no less lethal if accurately fired at a target. Especially if fitted with guidance kits for the individual shells, like the Excalibur of today (artillery shells with GPS). The US Navy Zumwalt class is essentially becoming a return to that sort of a principle.

All things considered, ED's combat options are beginning to look oddly primitive. :)
 
I can´t remember on which ship but ... I find bigger weapons look silly on some ships and remind me of those manga sized swords. E.g. on the Vulture?
 
Logically it would be both: More weapons over all, and larger ones. Too bad FD has a fetish for tiny fighters.
 
Yeah, small/medium weapons on the Anaconda/Corvette/Cutter is a bit silly. I more large would have been ideal, power usage would balance it well enough.
 
this is a Game,Nobody wants to play the no win scenarion even if its a valid concept,
Yet they have that exact issue with large ships VS small ones. (example: why does an eagle always one shot an a-rated conda's engines the moment the fight starts?)
 
Weapons are fine. Even a single huge hardpoint destroys smaller ships in record time. Ever see how fast a huge beam strips off a small ships shield? Even a medium shield succumbs pretty quickly to it. And large hardpoints are pretty devastating as well. Also the cutter isn't really a warship or combat vessel. The main point is its small power distributor and pretty lousy hard point layout. Look at the Corvette as an example of a ship better suited for combat and to a lesser extent the Anaconda. Also when you factor in the addition of engineer upgrades current weapons become even more deadly. You know... The fact the can pretty much ignore all your ships upgraded defenses and do damage to your internals and hull and completely bypass your shield.
 
ever tried large turretts or huge gimbals on an eagke target? "So, in that respect, as there's no other difference" then" ... tracking speed.

My Corvette's Two Huge Gimballed Multicannons have no issues tracking eagles. I really have no clue what you are talking about.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Weapons are fine. Even a single huge hardpoint destroys smaller ships in record time. Ever see how fast a huge beam strips off a small ships shield? Even a medium shield succumbs pretty quickly to it. And large hardpoints are pretty devastating as well. Also the cutter isn't really a warship or combat vessel. The main point is its small power distributor and pretty lousy hard point layout. Look at the Corvette as an example of a ship better suited for combat and to a lesser extent the Anaconda. Also when you factor in the addition of engineer upgrades current weapons become even more deadly. You know... The fact the can pretty much ignore all your ships upgraded defenses and do damage to your internals and hull and completely bypass your shield.

With all the whining about SCB that we had and then even more whining about how eagles should be able to do something against Anacondas, I would expect the supporters of these causes to be celebrating the Heat meta. NO? No one? I guess the cure is worse than the sickness lol
 
My Corvette's Two Huge Gimballed Multicannons have no issues tracking eagles. I really have no clue what you are talking about.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



With all the whining about SCB that we had and then even more whining about how eagles should be able to do something against Anacondas, I would expect the supporters of these causes to be celebrating the Heat meta. NO? No one? I guess the cure is worse than the sickness lol

Absolutely an example of that. They whined about not being able to lol-mine anaconda's in ships that would never stand a chance and now we have the opposite problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom