K-Wing

[Kaivers]

Think we can get one of these in GSF someday?

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/BTL-S8_K-wing_assault_starfighter

[NotThatOne]

Think we can get one of these in GSF someday?

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/BTL-S8_K-wing_assault_starfighter

 

Well, maybe...if they advance the timeline 3000+ years.

[Kaivers]

Well, maybe...if they advance the timeline 3000+ years.

 

Lol, well maybe the ancestor to the K-Wing then. I would definitely fly one.

[Armonddd]

Due to its large weapons loadout, the K-wing required a bombardier. The pilot and gunner sat in cockpits on either side of the command section.

 

Probably not.

[Kaivers]

Eh Bombardier/Gunner = Co Pilot right? There's a third type of bomber left so anything's possible. Lore says the manufacturer of the K-Wing was around Old Republic times. Would be very cool to see.

 

Edit: ...and it looks a lot cooler than...what did someone call them.."the flying remote controls"?

Edited February 3, 2014 by Kaivers

[Ramalina]

One question: in the absence of orbital battle stations like Golans, active destructible capital ships, or planetary class shielding arrays, what exactly would you use a K-wing equivalent for?

 

Our 'bombers' are basically scary looking shuttles used for deploying mines or droids, and the reason for this is that there's nothing to bomb. They're sort of sad, really. I'd prefer an armed lambda class shuttle to fly given the choice.

 

Before GSF can benefit from real bomber class starfighters it needs to deal with the lack of targets to be bombed.

[Altheran]

Basically, it's a Strike/Bomber hybrid, am I right ?

A Pike/Quell loading mines instead of secondary missile, wouldn't be it ?

[Kaivers]

Basically, it's a Strike/Bomber hybrid, am I right ?

A Pike/Quell loading mines instead of secondary missile, wouldn't be it ?

 

Pretty much and hopefully more maps and game modes are in the pipeline that will actually require some sort of bombing. I would like our current bombers to actually fulfill a bombing role at some point also.

[Kaivers]

One question: in the absence of orbital battle stations like Golans, active destructible capital ships, or planetary class shielding arrays, what exactly would you use a K-wing equivalent for?

 

Our 'bombers' are basically scary looking shuttles used for deploying mines or droids, and the reason for this is that there's nothing to bomb. They're sort of sad, really. I'd prefer an armed lambda class shuttle to fly given the choice.

 

Before GSF can benefit from real bomber class starfighters it needs to deal with the lack of targets to be bombed.

 

Agreed, but if you think about it we actually do have targets to "bomb" (Sat Turrets), its just that the current bombers are not designed for this.

 

With the EMP missile Pikes will, for all intents and purposes, actually be bombing targets. Once its heavy ordinance that can AOE it can be considered a bomb.

 

The middle ground between missiles and bombs should be heavy rockets like this; http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Proton_rocket.

[Ramalina]

Nah, bombs generally don't have motors, or if they do it's only a short boost at the end for runway cratering or bunker buster purposes. You can recognize a bomb cause it's both big, and gets to its target using the inertia it picked up from the launching craft.

 

The presence of minelayers and EMP weapons will help out the strike and heavy strike roles. Turrets are too easy to take down to require a real strike role. A minelayer camping a sat might be a worthy target though.

 

For a real bomber to be useful we're talking the ability to take down the shields around C in Lost shipyards, wreck the spacedocks, and turn the capital ships under construction into confetti. Oh, and maybe also destroy the opposing side's spawn ships. Any one of those are the sort of tasking a commanding officer might give a flight of K-wings.

[Kaivers]

Nah, bombs generally don't have motors, or if they do it's only a short boost at the end for runway cratering or bunker buster purposes. You can recognize a bomb cause it's both big, and gets to its target using the inertia it picked up from the launching craft.

 

The presence of minelayers and EMP weapons will help out the strike and heavy strike roles. Turrets are too easy to take down to require a real strike role. A minelayer camping a sat might be a worthy target though.

 

For a real bomber to be useful we're talking the ability to take down the shields around C in Lost shipyards, wreck the spacedocks, and turn the capital ships under construction into confetti. Oh, and maybe also destroy the opposing side's spawn ships. Any one of those are the sort of tasking a commanding officer might give a flight of K-wings.

 

To fit within the current game modes any type of bomb would require some sort of propellant or guidance system. So then, as you correctly stated, it all comes down to size and scale of effect. Anything with a large blast radius (AOE) provides a bombing effect.

 

The EMP missiles are the closest things we have to bombs because they have a large blast radius designed to affect multiple targets. They are categorized as missiles because they are small, fast and self propelled.

[Ramalina]

Aerodynamic drag and gravity aren't modeled in GSF. Consequence: landing bombs on target would be really easy, because when you released they'd keep going in a straight line at the same speed until they: hit something, got shot down, or travelled off the map. No need for a HUD and CCIP, just point ship, hit boost, release bomb, and pull out so you don't self frag.

 

Basically what you'd need for bombers to be worthwhile would be targets that are large, have very high health or shields (like in the 100's of thousands or millions) and have an effect on game outcomes. Oh, and you'd also have to create actual bombs as an available secondary weapon equipable by bombers. Perhaps also a ship suited to doing a bombing role to mount them on as well.

 

Actually they could do that if they built the right map. Since you have a chance to select your ship before the match it wouldn't even matter if bombers were only good on specific maps.

 

I think you'd want a ship about half-way between a gunship and a striker in speed and maneuverability, unimpressive primary weapons, and the ability to boost maybe halfway across the distance between the rep/imp spawn ships, but with really fast engine power recharge and or the booster recharge component. You'd want to be able to dive bomb, but shouldn't be able to out sprint strikes or interceptors if they chase you, very like a K-wing's performance in fact.

 

You'd want a target at least 1/2 to 3/4 the size of a sat in top down view otherwise it might be too hard to hit. You'd also have to balance the target health so that it could be downed in the absence of bombers, but that 2-4 bombers would make it a fairly easy kill.

 

Thinking about Golan III's, maybe some sort of defense platforms? Not super lethal maybe, but at least somewhat dangerous and possibly very annoying. A few turrets and a field projector that prevents afterburners from being used for a 7-12 km radius maybe?

 

Very large shield barriers that you can go around, but cuts time to objectives by a large margin if a bomber takes them down? Sort of like the ones at C in lost shipyards but 10 times bigger and no gaps in the frame to fly through?

 

They could do interesting things with fairly simple destructible static elements that would make a bomber that actually is armed and operates as a bomber pretty interesting. I suspect it won't happen, at least not soon, but I think that it could be done well even within the constraints of GSF if they made a serious effort at doing it.

[Delta_V]

There's nothing to say that bombers can't use missiles instead of bombs - in fact, modern heavy bombers often serve as cruise missile carriers rather than actually carry bombs.

 

In GSF, that could be represented by missiles with an even longer lock-on time than ProTorps, a slow flight time, and limited capacity, but long range, and very high damage. That's sort of what ProTorps are supposed to be right now, but their damage is still scaled for killing fighter-sized targets.

 

But yeah, it'd be cool to see bombers that actually perform the role of killing targets that fighters can hardly scratch, or as you said, turning enemy capships into confetti, rather than just minelayers and dronecarriers.

[Kaivers]

If they designed one of these and included some or all of the capabilities we've discussed I would buy it in a minute...h3!!...I would buy Cartel Packs until I got one.

[tunewalker]

Funny thing is I dont think the mine layers are to far from what all the people who want "real bombers" are asking for if you play them a certain way. We already know that with the right upgrades the bombs will explode when anything gets within 1500-2000 meters of the bomb depending on your upgrades.

 

 

Well if you want to do a bombing run on a target.......fly to under that range and drop a mine....the mine goes kaboom..... ta da Bomber that bombs a target.

[Kaivers]

Funny thing is I dont think the mine layers are to far from what all the people who want "real bombers" are asking for if you play them a certain way. We already know that with the right upgrades the bombs will explode when anything gets within 1500-2000 meters of the bomb depending on your upgrades.

 

 

Well if you want to do a bombing run on a target.......fly to under that range and drop a mine....the mine goes kaboom..... ta da Bomber that bombs a target.

 

I think that's a pretty cool tactic but I guess we're looking for "precision" bombing. Correct me if I'm wrong but from my understanding you really have no control over which target a mine hits once its deployed.