EVE Search - Stealth Bombers vs Dreadnaughts & Carriers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Stealth Bombers vs Dreadnaughts & Carriers

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Aranis Lyautey Rising Ashes Inc. SATRAPY	Posted - 2009.07.06 11:03:00 - [1] After watching National GeographicÆs Generals at War: Midway, I was thinking: why not use the existing Stealth Bombers and expand on them? I really like the recent changes; a paperthin bomber that drops its deadly payload and then needs to get the hell out or get obliterated. T3 Torpedo Launcher Cannot be used to take down anything smaller than a Dreadnaught or a Carrier (so not viable against a Battleship or below) Same missile velocity and flight time as regular torpedos but with a much bigger, deadly payload Maybe a cruiser-sized Stealth Bomber? 5 to 7 of these bombers to take down a dread in one volley and a bit less to blow up a carrier. This way itÆs not too easy but still doable. Not that itÆll help them much against a flock of carrier fighters, but itÆd be in line with the current fragile bombers. The speed of the fighters compared to that of the cruiser bombers would be a concern though. Give dreadnaughts something to compensate also so they will be better equipped to fight off these bombers? Smartbomb bonus, but perhaps not drones because they already have a drone bay, so they can use medium drones to kill them off. I feel this would give cap fleets a reason to bring carriers to a fight more and use the carrier fighter fleet to hunt down the bombers and make for a more tactical playing field. If not for the omgwtfbbq carrier fighters it would be ideal to use regular stealth bombers (frigates) for this and have a reason to take interceptors and assault frigates as a support fleet.
Lyyraia	Posted - 2009.07.06 11:24:00 - [2] Originally by: Aranis Lyautey After watching National GeographicÆs Generals at War: Midway, I was thinking: why not use the existing Stealth Bombers and expand on them? I really like the recent changes; a paperthin bomber that drops its deadly payload and then needs to get the hell out or get obliterated. T3 Torpedo Launcher Cannot be used to take down anything smaller than a Dreadnaught or a Carrier (so not viable against a Battleship or below) Same missile velocity and flight time as regular torpedos but with a much bigger, deadly payload Maybe a cruiser-sized Stealth Bomber? 5 to 7 of these bombers to take down a dread in one volley and a bit less to blow up a carrier. This way itÆs not too easy but still doable. Not that itÆll help them much against a flock of carrier fighters, but itÆd be in line with the current fragile bombers. The speed of the fighters compared to that of the cruiser bombers would be a concern though. Give dreadnaughts something to compensate also so they will be better equipped to fight off these bombers? Smartbomb bonus, but perhaps not drones because they already have a drone bay, so they can use medium drones to kill them off. I feel this would give cap fleets a reason to bring carriers to a fight more and use the carrier fighter fleet to hunt down the bombers and make for a more tactical playing field. If not for the omgwtfbbq carrier fighters it would be ideal to use regular stealth bombers (frigates) for this and have a reason to take interceptors and assault frigates as a support fleet. I marked the funny parts there... and... NO, bad idea, lul
Ajurna Jakar Gallente Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.07.06 11:25:00 - [3] so let me get this straight. you want to oneshot 1.1 million ehp with 7 stealth bomber cruiser sized ships? do you realise how stupid that sounds?
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.07.06 12:22:00 - [4] And while you're at it, give the Tempest a 400,000 damage alpha strike too.
Zeredek	Posted - 2009.07.06 12:25:00 - [5] Originally by: Ajurna Jakar so let me get this straight. you want to oneshot 1.1 million ehp with 7 stealth bomber cruiser sized ships? do you realise how stupid that sounds? I'd love to read what they say in local afterwards if that happens!
Aranis Lyautey Rising Ashes Inc. SATRAPY	Posted - 2009.07.06 12:27:00 - [6] I was just opening up a discussion. Silly me for thinking I'd get some intelligent answers Originally by: Ajurna Jakar so let me get this straight. you want to oneshot 1.1 million ehp with 7 stealth bomber cruiser sized ships? do you realise how stupid that sounds? You do realize that a ship like the Akagi was hit by just one bomb, which penetrated to the upper hangar deck and exploded among the armed and fueled aircraft there. One extremely near miss also slanted in and exploded underwater close astern, the resulting geyser bending the flight deck upward and also causing crucial rudder damage. Sōryū took three bomb hits in the hangar deck, Kaga at least four, possibly more. All three carriers were out of action and were eventually abandoned and scuttled. (wikipedia quote) You were saying, Ajurna Jakar? Make it 15 bombers then or 2 or 3-volleying, whatever. Cloaked bombers traveling up to 60 km or something, decloaking, firing and off again repeatedly. Use a heavier kind of torpedo obviously. I included the dreadnaught bonuses to give them a reason to not complain/cry. You could at least have tried to improve on the idea
HP Baxter	Posted - 2009.07.06 12:38:00 - [7] Realism != Fun. /thread
Riddick Richard Caldari Corporation 12345 Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.07.06 12:44:00 - [8] I like the bottom idea of this to bring more realism and variations to game, but in this case realism is that the ships that national geographic showed prolly didnt have a forcefield around them? Once i'm posting.. mebbe some shield penetrating ammos similar to rl reactive tank penetrating ammos.. Ammos would do less dmg than "normal" ammos, but would make shield leak to armor with every hit
Aranis Lyautey Rising Ashes Inc. SATRAPY	Posted - 2009.07.06 12:45:00 - [9] Let me get this straight: I'm not asking for an overpowered bomber that can take down cap ships in one go. What I am proposing is a bomber squad of 15 ships that will have a very hard time delivering their payload to the target SELECTIVE READING MUCH?
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.06 12:54:00 - [10] You are talking about world war tech ships the size of a EVE cruiser. A comparison like that does not hold. But I think the basic idea of sub-capital ships specialized in harassing capital ships isn't that bad in essence. Just the balancing is far off. A group of those ships should not be able to one volley a capital. But they should be able to turn the tide on breaking the tank in an ongoing capital fight or, given enough time, be able to pop a lone carrier or left behind dreadnaught. I am thinking of a single shot launcher, very short range (5-10km) with a signature radius modification so it cannot effectively be used against sub-capital ships. If they could only carry a single of the warheads at any time they will have to do a attack run and then return to a base for reloading, like a POS or carrier or station. Accurate stats for damage would be bound to balancing. I think something between 50-150k damage would be in the effective range but people more experienced in capital warfare can (probably) come up with better numbers. Considering how specialized the purpose of such a ship is, it would be a T2 ship. And considering the size of the needed warhead, a cruiser or maybe even destroyer sized ship could be big enough. Anyway, the idea itself isn't bad, it just needs balancing. -------- Ideas for: Mining

Aranis Lyautey Rising Ashes Inc. SATRAPY	Posted - 2009.07.06 13:11:00 - [11] Edited by: Aranis Lyautey on 06/07/2009 13:13:25 Originally by: Abrazzar But I think the basic idea of sub-capital ships specialized in harassing capital ships isn't that bad in essence. Just the balancing is far off. A group of those ships should not be able to one volley a capital. But they should be able to turn the tide on breaking the tank in an ongoing capital fight or, given enough time, be able to pop a lone carrier or left behind dreadnaught. I am thinking of a single shot launcher, very short range (5-10km) with a signature radius modification so it cannot effectively be used against sub-capital ships. If they could only carry a single of the warheads at any time they will have to do a attack run and then return to a base for reloading, like a POS or carrier or station. Accurate stats for damage would be bound to balancing. I think something between 50-150k damage would be in the effective range. Finally I like this. The one-volleying could happen only if all 15 bombers were able to hit the target, something which would be very unlikely to happen given the defenses and yes make the payload like a bomb (NOT equal to a bomb in effects), with one loaded and room for one more in your cargohold, no more. Make reloading take some time too Edit/ I did mention the "not being able to use against sub-capitals as not against battleships or below"
Skyvyr Caldari House Of BlackStar Semper-Mortis	Posted - 2009.07.06 14:01:00 - [12] Obviously the OP is thinking like starwars, with a single bomber should blow up titans... ..after all what's the risk vs reward? /sarcasm off.
Aranis Lyautey Rising Ashes Inc. SATRAPY	Posted - 2009.07.06 14:09:00 - [13] Originally by: Skyvyr Obviously the OP is thinking like starwars, with a single bomber should blow up titans... ..after all what's the risk vs reward? /sarcasm off. Look, another one who can't read
Rhohan Minmatar Pelennor Swarm	Posted - 2009.07.06 16:08:00 - [14] As a student of WWII, you should know that most ships that were taken out of action weren't due to "blowing up" but were due to flooding issues, such as sinking and capsizing... That doesn't happen in space. Even in Pearl Harbor, most of the Battleships that were sunk ended being re-floated, repaired, and brought back into action. One of the greatest threats during the later stages of the war was of the possible beaching of the Yamato during Leyte Gulf. Once it's beached, it would be a lot harder to destroy, than to sink. Take away the element of needing to float in water, and it will take a lot more to destroy a armored warship.
Aranis Lyautey	Posted - 2009.07.06 19:00:00 - [15] I see no reason why a space society would think up dreadnaughts and carriers but would forget to develop the bombers or the equivalent of a dive bomber with one heavy torpedo strapped to it to take them to hell. A high risk to lose the bomber even before it can drop its payload, but if it succeeds it does a lot of damage. In the unlikely event that more of them succeed it blows the target up (dreadnaught cost = cost of SEVERAL bombers to take it down) I suspect it's the idea that a bunch of much smaller ships would blow up your x billion e-peen cap ship made you people froth with anger and lose your head which stopped you from being able to read any further and have a mature discussion I should definitely blow up more ships if you all care that much about them
Alexander Vallen Caldari	Posted - 2009.07.06 23:33:00 - [16] Originally by: Aranis Lyautey I see no reason why a space society would think up dreadnaughts and carriers but would forget to develop the bombers or the equivalent of a dive bomber with one heavy torpedo strapped to it to take them to hell. A high risk to lose the bomber even before it can drop its payload, but if it succeeds it does a lot of damage. In the unlikely event that more of them succeed it blows the target up (dreadnaught cost = cost of SEVERAL bombers to take it down) I suspect it's the idea that a bunch of much smaller ships would blow up your x billion e-peen cap ship made you people froth with anger and lose your head which stopped you from being able to read any further and have a mature discussion I should definitely blow up more ships if you all care that much about them Perhaps what we need isnt so much a Stealth bomber (or Cruiser) but a specific Attack/Assault bomber? As you said, a very small payload of maybe 1-4 of the heavy weapons and make them very fragile. They'd need to be escorted by assault frigates to protect against equivilant enemy ships or fighters.
ThaDollaGenerale The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.07.07 00:52:00 - [17] Why not just let the stealthbombers fit one citadel launcher or 3 siege launchers. The citadel launcher would have to receive ship bonuses to make it viable. But there you go.
Zibu 81 Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.07 01:11:00 - [18] You're forgetting one thing: Those WWII bombers couldn't warp right to the carrier / other ship to drop it's bomb / torpedo. They had to stay in air for couple hours where they could be intercepted and destroyed. If you wanted to bring similar behavior to eve you would have to make it so that those new bombers cannot warp to anything at a range closer than say 250 km. To avoid exploits you shouldn't be able to board them if there is a non-fleet ship within 250 km. And they have to slowboat from there on, giving your carrier escort time to deal with them. They also shouldn't be able to cloak or be very fast. Combine that with a need of 15 of them to one volley a dread and we're getting somewhere (not that such ship would be useful or anything)
Breanta Nryrun	Posted - 2009.07.07 05:10:00 - [19] Edited by: Breanta Nryrun on 07/07/2009 05:13:43 You are asking the impossible. For a small ship such as a bomber to take down a dread or carrier in such a fashion, you would be turning PVP on its head. For you to ask such a question indicates that you have never ridden in a dread and never had to drop a billion for a well fit carrier. The balance of the stealth bomber is good and it already did get a boost. It can warp cloaked and uses Torps now instead of Cruise missiles. There is no need for any other size bomber as it stands now. One stealth bomber is enough. I dont believe CCP will even remotely consider your request.
AtheistOfDoom Amarr The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.07.07 05:26:00 - [20] Edited by: AtheistOfDoom on 07/07/2009 05:27:28 Originally by: HP Baxter Realism != Fun. /thread this tbh. we do not need an anti-cap subcap, you need to use tactics. rr bs gang maybe? Quote: Give dreadnaughts something to compensate also so they will be better equipped to fight off these bombers? Smartbomb bonus, but perhaps not drones because they already have a drone bay, so they can use medium drones to kill them off. Quoted because the stupidity of the sentence is amazing. Pew Pew Lazorz!!!

Arkhan Bayne	Posted - 2009.07.07 06:04:00 - [21] Originally by: Aranis Lyautey You do realize that a ship like the Akagi was hit by just one bomb, which penetrated to the upper hangar deck and exploded among the armed and fueled aircraft there. One extremely near miss also slanted in and exploded underwater close astern, the resulting geyser bending the flight deck upward and also causing crucial rudder damage. Sōryū took three bomb hits in the hangar deck, Kaga at least four, possibly more. All three carriers were out of action and were eventually abandoned and scuttled. (wikipedia quote) yeah, and midway-local was full of people whining about how OP diver bombers were... an interesting idea, however, this is a game, and these ships are a huge investment, losing them to something as cheap as that would be annoying, would certainly be over powered, and ultimately just not be very fun. why fly capital ships if they're just a giant neon torpedo-goes-here sign? you're better off bringing a few more battleships.
Khalia Nestune Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.07.07 07:08:00 - [22] Edited by: Khalia Nestune on 07/07/2009 07:08:50 What, and losing a BS to a group of SBs isn't any less annoying? What? There's no good reason I've seen not to have a sub-capital, dedicated anti-capital ship. It would need to be fairly useless for other things, but I think the OP's proposal is fairly on the mark there. This would add an interesting dynamic to the existing setup, and perhaps would finally shut people up about DDs being overpowered. You don't like the DD? Warp in a fleet of anti-cap ships and try to take it out before the DD goes off!
Aranis Lyautey	Posted - 2009.07.07 11:59:00 - [23] Edited by: Aranis Lyautey on 07/07/2009 12:02:04 No cloak on this dive bomber would indeed be better, but having to start 250 km out? You might as well not bother. Warp to zero would be a big problem though. Make it a slow frigate with one bomb that has to be loaded in its launcher because the bomb can't be put in its cargohold. To rearm, you have to go back to base or to a nearby carrier or supply ship. Maybe 2 turret highslots to try to counter incoming light drones? If that dive bomber is easy to kill, it shouldn't be overpowered and protecting it with assault frigates would be excellent. Use the carrier fighters, the dread's own drones and your own inty/AF wing to help protect against such attacks. Although the smartbomb bonus is a bad idea, I do think a dreadnaught should have a viable defense against such a dive bomber. Don't get too hung up on my previous posts Funny, I can already smell the fear coming from dreadnaught pilots having to rethink tactics
Tom Hanks Raype Inc.	Posted - 2009.07.07 12:26:00 - [24] I think this idea would not work because in order to have a ship powerful enough to blow away a capital, even if there are ten of them, in a couple volleys. You would have to make them rather easy to kill, to balance it out, so easy that they would never even be used. For the reward being so huge, the risk would be totally unacceptable to compensate. The idea I always liked was to give carriers a torpedo bomber type of drone. This would give it more firepower against capital ships and it would make it somewhat like a WW2 carrier. And yes, people dont pay billions of isk to hop into a dread and then get insta popped by 10 ships firing once each. You shouldnt be able to snipe a dreadnought so to speak without using about 15 dreads. Caldari Racial Purity
Aranis Lyautey	Posted - 2009.07.07 12:35:00 - [25] Edited by: Aranis Lyautey on 07/07/2009 12:36:36 Make the cost of the number of torpedos to take it down minus some % in losses of dive bombers equal to the cost of 1 dreadnaught. Give or take
Cors It's A Trap	Posted - 2009.07.07 12:37:00 - [26] if you want a bonus for cap ships, make it so they have a "module" so they can see cloaked ships that are withing 50km, and the "T3 Torpedo Launcher" has a range of 25km. This way the cloaked bombers have to move in uncloaked for 25km. This gives the caps time to lock them and send out drones... might have to make it only 10km or 20km for the BOMBs.
Rhinanna Minmatar	Posted - 2009.07.07 12:48:00 - [27] Edited by: Rhinanna on 07/07/2009 12:48:31 Warp to zero is the only problem I see with this. Give them a 2 min reload time and can carry only 2-3 missiles with cargo hold extenders and it would be fine, take 20 odd torps to kill a dread, 15 approx for a carrier. Would mean dreads are fleet ships and require support, same for titans and carriers. Solo capital ships are just stupid. They should be vunverable (no turrets, weak tanks) and not likely to survive long so half their numbers of assault ships would kill most of them before they got into firing range (approx 10KM max, maybe less), a dictor can easily stop them from warping in too close. This would finally make smaller ships useful in fleet PvP which is something that has been needed for a long time! Poor dready pilots thinking they should be immune to anything short of a gang of BSes. Also dictors needed in support to stop bombers warping to zero solves that problem nicely!
McDaddy Pimp Minmatar	Posted - 2009.07.07 12:48:00 - [28] Dive Bomber sounds lame. Just call it Heavy Bomber or something. my idea: Use a cruiser hull, with t1 resist, for the ship, with fitting bonus to fit Citadel Launchers. The boni, etc should be that the final alpha/volley is scaled up from the Stealth bomber. Maybe make it have 5~8 times alpha of current Stealth Bomber... or something more balanced, idk.
Aranis Lyautey	Posted - 2009.07.07 17:02:00 - [29] After doing some more research I was thinking 15+ bombers 2-volleying a dread, this in IDEAL circumstances, so usually more. It would certainly add more tactics to the game 30 SBs firing bombs at the same time could do 192k damage, but a lot of that damage gets wasted, so perhaps you could already do a lot of damage. You could think up a higher damage dealing bomb only 10 times more expensive with 10 times more damage There's bound to be a corp/alliance to do it, if they haven't already
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.07.07 19:50:00 - [30] The idea that could work better is this: anti-cap torpedo launcher that must be fired from distance of at least 50km away from target - otherwise it wouldn't hit, continue flying Speed of such torpedo would be 1000 m/s - so it would take at least 50 seconds to fly the torpedo would be clearly visible on overview as separate object - like fighter, it would have sig radius and HP similar to t2 Ogre It could be targeted and destroyed by anyone If you have that, then the large cap fleets would have a real need for agile support ships, that would fly around and try pick off those torpedos - which much fly at least 50 seconds before hitting. If you make them vulnerable this much, it would be acceptable to have extremely high damage, such that 4-8 would be enough to down a carrier.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.