| Author |
Topic |
FiestatheKoala |
Posted - 2008.08.27 21:01:00 - [ 31]
 Originally by: Agent Kira
Just to clarify, as alot of you are repeating the 'YOU MISSED ALOT OF STUFF'
The study was not about the following :
- Anti gate camps
- PVP
- Covert Jump Portals (the use of by a covert fleet)
It is assumed that all this has been overcome to reach the target, and the squad of bombers is now in a position to start attack runs on a strategic target, ie jump bridge, cyno jammer array, or whatever.
The study was about the effectivness of a bomber wing who's goal is to take down a strategic target.
The clue is in the title.
Planning on using a stealth bomber against a "strategic target" such as a cyno jammer is like bringing a knife to a gun fight... The name does not imply strategic bomber in any way and your report is a just a load of numbers saying something that anyone who looked at eft could figure out in 2 minutes. Now if you didn't go and think of the most ******ed thing to shoot at you would have noticed there are some awesome jobs for bombers with bombs to do to one of your key "strategic targets"... |
Agent Kira |
Posted - 2008.08.27 23:00:00 - [ 32]
Edited by: Agent Kira on 27/08/2008 23:05:53 Originally by: FiestatheKoala
Originally by: Agent Kira
Just to clarify, as alot of you are repeating the 'YOU MISSED ALOT OF STUFF'
The study was not about the following :
- Anti gate camps
- PVP
- Covert Jump Portals (the use of by a covert fleet)
It is assumed that all this has been overcome to reach the target, and the squad of bombers is now in a position to start attack runs on a strategic target, ie jump bridge, cyno jammer array, or whatever.
The study was about the effectivness of a bomber wing who's goal is to take down a strategic target.
The clue is in the title.
Planning on using a stealth bomber against a "strategic target" such as a cyno jammer is like bringing a knife to a gun fight...
The name does not imply strategic bomber in any way and your report is a just a load of numbers saying something that anyone who looked at eft could figure out in 2 minutes. Now if you didn't go and think of the most ******ed thing to shoot at you would have noticed there are some awesome jobs for bombers with bombs to do to one of your key "strategic targets"...
Ooooh a troll with a flame.....FAIL!!! I posted this as i thought it would help other people, and i also wanted CONTRUCTIVE critisisme (possibly with 'eveidential' backup) which again you fail to post any real argument and basically say nothing cos basically you just skimmed what i wrote without really understanding what i was trying to say. Thanks to everyone(else) for taking the time and for your input. The word 'Bomber' automatically implies strategic-ness(if there is such a word). Look it up. Britannica, Google, Wikipedia... Take your pick. Personally, i was taught the role of a bomber during my years in the Army Air Corps. A bomber isnt a fighter. And yes im very aware that a bomber can be used in many other applications in Eve, such as anti gate blob, convoy attacks, etc.. But this study was to see 'IF' it would be possible to use in such a role of a strategic bomber. While EFT is a very good piece of software and tells you how much damage you can deal and/or tank, it does not plan entire missions, logistics for whole squads, quantities of munitions te be used, how difficult it will be to navigate 15 jumps of 0.0, etc... Unfortunalty you need to think about this stuff yourself. I cut a lot out of the report hense why people are saying 'stuff is missing' as i didnt want to make it very long. Quite frankly im here to have fun, not study. Anyway, once again, thanks to everyone for their input and you have highlighted a couple of issues that i overlooked (Mainly the use of black ops being added to the equation). I usually try to reply to questions or comments for 24hours after i post, which it has been, therefore im done with this thread.  |
Karasuma Akane
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire |
Posted - 2008.08.28 02:33:00 - [ 33]
Kira, you appear to be hung up on CCP using the title 'bomber' for this subclass of ships... the thing is, they just don't (and were never meant to) play the real world role that name suggests to you. They may be employed a bit more like a WW2 dive bomber against small/moving tactical targets than the sort of strategic attack role you envision though.
If I recall correctly, stealth bombers were put into place to be and advocated as a surprise counter to static gatecamps and tightly-formed blobs - get your gang of seven SBs to vector in on such an opposing group, suddenly decloak and drop their bombs at the right moment, and then warp away before the targets can react in time to escape the effects - massive damage intended to break the camp or spread out the blob, making it easier to engage with more conventional ship classes. And as noted above, they are useful for other specialized roles as well.
They aren't meant to sit still and 'bomb' fixed installations, as your study certainly points out. For the strategic bombardment or taking out of enemy infrastructure that you are considering, in Eve that is undertaken by groups of battleships acting in concert and/or capital ships such as dreadnaughts, with smaller ships in support/defense.
|
Irulan S'Dijana
Amarr
Drexler Burnum Inc.
Rising Phoenix Alliance |
Posted - 2008.08.28 12:24:00 - [ 34]
How about instead of bombs doing damage, make them to EW or something? e.g. a 15km high strength ECM burst. Each race would burst according to their own radar or racial enemy types.
That would be a more strategic use. Decloak, burst a hostile sniper fleet, recloak, do it again later. |
Doctor Mabuse |
Posted - 2008.08.28 17:43:00 - [ 35]
Hmmm. How many bombers would be required to take down a fighter? Being an area weapon, presumably he same number to take down 100 fighters? Where would you see 100 fighters all gathered in a small area? How much would those fighters be worth? Risk v Reward anyone?  |
Derek Sigres |
Posted - 2008.08.28 17:48:00 - [ 36]
Originally by: Doctor Mabuse
Hmmm.
How many bombers would be required to take down a fighter?
Being an area weapon, presumably he same number to take down 100 fighters?
Where would you see 100 fighters all gathered in a small area?
How much would those fighters be worth?
Risk v Reward anyone?
Given the situations where you find large clumps of fighters (fleet engagments) offer the worst hope of survival for the bomber delivering the charge, you'd have to guarntee you could kill 2 fighters per bomber to make the job "worth it" financially. Afterall, if you lag on the warpout, the bomb will probably kill your 20 million (fitted) isk bomber, and the charge that just detonated was worth another 10 million isk. Really, there are all sorts of reasons why the bomb thing doesn't work very well in the exact situation it ought to work perfectly but the biggest reason is simply lag. |
creo5 |
Posted - 2008.08.28 17:49:00 - [ 37]
uhhh they do
and yea i do agree that just because they're named "bomber" doesn't mean that they are suppose to be used in bombing buildings because they did in rl, like someone else said. they have ships for this... ie: dreads.
flame or not, you should try the viability of stealth bombers against ship targets instead of a pos. i don't think they thought ppl would try and siege pos's with them because they're frigates... |
Boz Well
Minmatar |
Posted - 2008.08.28 18:09:00 - [ 38]
Originally by: creo5
uhhh they do
and yea i do agree that just because they're named "bomber" doesn't mean that they are suppose to be used in bombing buildings because they did in rl, like someone else said. they have ships for this... ie: dreads.
flame or not, you should try the viability of stealth bombers against ship targets instead of a pos. i don't think they thought ppl would try and siege pos's with them because they're frigates...
The OP was using SB's to take down a pos? I might have to read that document after all... |
Nazrill
Caldari
Riders on the Storm
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 03:20:00 - [ 39]
Edited by: Nazrill on 02/09/2008 01:35:49
|
|
All Channels
Ships and Modules
