Originally by: MavricktheGreat

---

So, what do you guys think about using a 10mn afterburner II on a interceptor?

---

Originally by: Julien Derida

---

Edited by: Julien Derida on 27/04/2005 11:30:50

Originally by: Deepeh

---

That's debatable, if you web him, scramble him and put a nosferatu on him, odds are that you will obliterate him in a second. :)

---

How so? The inty with the MWD will be able dictate the range of the engagement in the vast majority of circumstances. He will only be in nos range and web range if he wants to be there. You can therefore assume that he's set up to fight at that range. It is therefore an even fight. The cap advantage that the AB gives is too small to matter in such a short engagement.

To summarise:

Close Range AB Inty Vs Close Range MWD Inty = Even fight

Close Range AB Inty Vs Long Range MWD Inty = Dead AB Inty

Long Range AB Inty Vs Close Range MWD Inty = Dead AB Inty

Long Range AB Inty Vs Long Range MWD Inty = Even fight

Of course, the MWD inty can also choose not to engage in all these situations.

Interceptors are aggressive ships. You should be forcing the fight to happen on your terms. If you want to sit back and let others dictate the range of the fight, you would be better off in an AF.

Edit: I don't meant to rant here . If people want to fly interceptors with ABs then more power to them. It makes my life easier .

---

Originally by: xaioguai

---

Originally by: Jack Blank

---

Originally by: xaioguai

---

Just lost a claw to a harpy the other day because his rail track better than my 200mm ac

---

also harpys can tank really well, i wouldnt attack a af in an inty without backup.

---

I think i can own that harpy if i have AB on board....oh well...

---

Originally by: Julien Derida

---

How so? The inty with the MWD will be able dictate the range of the engagement in the vast majority of circumstances.

---

Originally by: Olivin

---

With MWD sig penalty and gimped setup you should
be dead long before you decide what range you
should fight this time. Although for tackling purposes MWD 4tw.

Olivin

---

Originally by: Julien Derida

---

Conclusion:Running a MWD does not gimp your setup.
Conclusion: The MWD sig penalty is not as important as you imply.

If you still don't believe me, why not put your money where your mouth is? Name a time and I will fight you 1v1 in an interceptor. You run an AB and I'll run a MWD. We'll see who wins .

---

Originally by: Julien Derida

---

Originally by: Olivin

---

With MWD sig penalty and gimped setup you should
be dead long before you decide what range you
should fight this time. Although for tackling purposes MWD 4tw.

Olivin

---

Here's a couple of facts for you:

Fact no. 1

MWD II requires 18MW and 25tf
AB II requires 13MW and 15tf

So, by using an AB over a MWD you save 5MW and 10TF. That is not enough to fit an extra damage mod or a decent armour plate. You could fit a named small armour rep, but that is going to be of minimal use in such a short fight.

The MWD does of course give you a 25% cap penalty, but interceptor fights are too short for cap to matter.

Conclusion:Running a MWD does not gimp your setup.

Fact no. 2

AB II Speed Boost = 168.75% (w/ Accel Control 5)

MWD II Speed Boost = 687.5% (w/ Accel Control 5)
MWD II Sig Penalty = 500%

Now, the ability of a gun to track a target is effected by the quantity speed/sig_radius. Therefore, we can calculate a number that tells us how hard the ship is to track. Lets call this number 'normalised speed'.

For the AB:
Normalised Speed = (Speed + 1.6875*Speed)/Sig = 2.6875 *(Speed/Sig)
i.e. the ship is 2.6875 times harder to track

For the MWD:
Normalised Speed = (Speed + 6.875*Speed)/(Sig + 5*Sig) = 1.3125* (Speed/Sig)

Therefore, in ideal circumstances a ship with AB is around twice as hard to track as one with MWD.

Now, within web range this does not matter. If both targets are webbed, gun tracking will not be an issue. At long range, the pilot with the AB has a tracking advantage. How much of a difference in DoT this makes depends on how tracking deficient the guns being used are. Ironically, the MWD pilot can negate the AB pilots small advantage at this range by simply turning off his MWD.

Conclusion: The MWD sig penalty is not as important as you imply.

If you still don't believe me, why not put your money where your mouth is? Name a time and I will fight you 1v1 in an interceptor. You run an AB and I'll run a MWD. We'll see who wins .

---

Originally by: Suicide Keen

---

Who has ceptor vs ceptor battles anyway, that's not the question? I'll take the 1mn after burner II setup in any fleet engagement over your MWD fleet engagement. If I am within 100km of a battleship fleet in the AB I am nearly unhittable.

---

Quote:

---

Sure, a MWD and transverse velocity cancel each other out, but that puts you back where you started with your base speed. The microwarp doesn't give you any advantage whatsoever for not getting hit as the sig radius penalty negates the added transverse speeds. The only benefit a MWD does do is give you a quicker approach to targets. Using a MWD to evade targets to long range is suicidal.

An AB II gives you ~150% boost making you 2 1/2 times less trackable, especially from long range when signature radius + transverse means life or death.

Facts: An interceptor with a mwd running is no different than an interceptor without a mwd running in terms of trackability and hit ability.
An interceptor with an AB running is more difficult to hit than an interceptor without any propulsion mods.

Plug in the numbers on this site if you do not believe me.

I've been blown up in a ceptor at 150km by a BS with a transverse of nearly 2000 m/s. I can now transverse 1000 m/s and have a better chance to avoid hits at this range. I can also approach my target, albeit slower but safer from within 100km without worry as long as I keep the transverse above 400ish.

---

Originally by: Olivin

---

What sort of money you are talking about?

Olivin

---