Posted 25 July 2007 - 10:51 PM
WOOT! Mine is the top post on pages TWO & THREE!
(Simple pleasures for simple minds...) :-D
Posted 30 July 2007 - 06:14 PM
To hark back to this topics original purpose; the Gamma-class ATR-6 assault transport rocks my nonexistent socks. As a heavy, durable bomber it excels- and is capable of tackling those oh-so-annoying corvettes as well, leaving its only weakness to be fighters. Even then, the sheer durability means it requires either several attack runs or truly advanced fighters to destroy.
Couple them with some Sentinel-class landers, and you have a recipe for pain. Sure, the Sentinel is slow- but that just means the fighters overshoot it to be blasted in the back! Plus, it doesn't get too far ahead of the Gamma's.
Posted 30 July 2007 - 08:04 PM
Posted 31 July 2007 - 09:45 AM
Overall, it's a question of whether twelve light torpedoes matches up to four full torpedoes...
Posted 31 July 2007 - 07:56 PM
4 torpedoes = 4 * 48 = 192.
Of course, generally there are two launchers as well. But with transports, you get:
- A dedicated gunner for the warhead launchers, so they can be fired at anything in the forward arc (9 to 3) instead of just your 12 o'clock.
- Double the max range cap for energy weapons over starfighters (800 versus 400) and 150% of the warhead max range at 900 over 600. So where starfighters can just barely launch their warheads outside of the range of light lasers and quad lasers, transports only have to worry about heavy lasers, provided that they have the maneuverability to pull up in time.
- Much thicker armor and more potent shields over bombers (fighters and bombers were downscaled a bit to compensate for their biased XW values; if you look at how many times the Falcon was hit versus an X-wing, there's no way that those values are comparable).
Posted 01 August 2007 - 12:30 AM
Plus, as of now you don't have to sink gods-knows-how-much in upgrades into them. Yes, I do think the starfighters aren't up to much without being upgraded out the wazoo.
Regarding your point on the Falcon; well it depends what you use to judge the Falcons shields by. If you're going from the base YT-1300 freighter then, well... don't!
The Falcon is, after all, customized beyond belief. I think Lando once noted that it's basically a huge jumble of parts held together by its shields, which run through the outer edge of the hull to strengthen it. I think the thing has got... What? Four overlapping heavy duty shield generators? Five? Frankly I'm surprised the TIE's bolts didn't just bounce off...
Posted 01 August 2007 - 07:42 PM
Anyways, yeah, I know the Falcon has nasty outlaw tech shields, but even still, there's no way that fighter armor can be as thick as transport armor, if only for the reason that you're hauling a couple dozen passengers instead of a couple.
Actually, I just finished the Skipray upgrades the other day and they are nasty. The gunner station really does it; there were just missiles and torpedoes flying everywhere. If you really micro them well, you can just skirt outside the range of defensive lasers and deliver payload after payload. Obviously anything that gets upgrades is going to look weak compared to the 10th generation of it, but once everything is done, it should even out so you'll have to be more selective about which upgrades you take.
Posted 01 August 2007 - 10:52 PM
Edited by Imrix, 01 August 2007 - 11:00 PM.
Posted 02 August 2007 - 10:01 PM
What they are, is a well-known archetype known as a Glass Cannon. They can dish out the hurt on capitol ships like no other, but they cannot take it.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users