open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Tech II Destroyer: Heavy Bomber
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Volare Fortis
Encephalopathy
Posted - 2007.08.29 10:01:00 - [1]
 

With interdictors playing such an important role against capships in fleet operations, it stands to reason the ship class would benefit from a second variation on the same role, that of delivering damage for a fleet against enemy capships.

The description of Citadel Torpedo Launchers as listed in game is:

Citadel Torpedo Launcher I
The size of a small frigate, this massive launcher is designed for extended sieges of stationary installations and other large targets.

A destroyer-sized ship, designed as a non-covert heavy bomber, could conceivably hold a single Citadel Torpedo Launcher, allowing it to make bombing runs against capital ships, or heavily target-painted battleships (Huginn spotter/painter for Heavy Bomber squadron attack, anyone?).

For its key module, I propose the
Citadel Torpedo Bay I
The size of a small frigate, this massive launcher is designed for integration into a bomber for assaults on capital ships and other large targets.

Give the ship class a special bonus, allowing it and only it to equip this module.

Issues of balance for testing (that I see right away):
-SPs for effective piloting, as considered in a percentage of the time to become an effective carrier/dreadnaught pilot
-Damage issues, enough to be significant as a deployed squadron, but not gamebreaking in a single bomber (which could be easily popped anyway by an alert support fleet)
-Effectiveness of capship deployed smartbombs as a countermeasure
-Cost issues, building and equipping a squadron of bombers as opposed to a full-fledged dreadnaught
-Utility for POS attack support, particularly the new outside-of-forcefield modules meant to be threatened by small gangs.

Volare Fortis
Encephalopathy
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:57:00 - [2]
 

A ship example, for the sake of debate.

Name: Kingfisher
Hull: Cormorant
Role: Heavy Bomber

Heavy bombers are destroyer-sized vessels built to counter the proliferation of capital class vessels, and provide highly mobile fleets with some striking power against installations. Sacrificing tactical flexibility and agility for all-out concentrated damage and speed, they have proven invaluable in threatening the core of large fleets, in addition to providing support in attacks to systems locked by cynosural jamming.

Developer: Kaalakiota

As befits one of the largest weapons manufacturers in the known world, Kaalakiota's ships are very combat focused. Favoring the traditional Caldari combat strategy, they are designed around a substantial number of weapons systems, especially missile launchers. However, they have rather weak armor and structure, relying more on shields for protection.

Destroyer Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage and 5% bonus to Capital Launcher rate of fire per level.
99% reduction in CPU need for Citadel Torpedo Bay.
Heavy Bombers Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to all Shield resistances per level, 5% bonus to Max Velocity per level.

High Slots: 2
Med Slots: 5
Low Slots: 2
Launcher Hardpoints: 1
Turret Hardpoints: 1

Brodo Faggins
Amarr
Ministry of War
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:03:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Brodo ***gins on 29/08/2007 19:03:35
Hmmm an expansion on the stealth bomber concept. It's a good idea but think of the defences. Since its based on a destroyer it will be the size of a cruiser so it will be easily taken out by battlecruisers and possibly battleships. The primary defence of the Stealth bomber is its cloaking. What is the primary defence of the Heavy bomber class? Not size because it is based on a destroyer hull. Not tanking because it can be hit effectivly by medium guns. So what are its defensive strong suits?

Volare Fortis
Encephalopathy
Posted - 2007.08.29 20:09:00 - [4]
 

Apart from the weak shield tank, not much, unfortunately. Of course, if you slap shield extenders on them, you only make the sig radius problem you mentioned worse, so getting bombers into play would be a tactical challenge.

One possibility is giving them a similar bonus to transport ships, making them more difficult to warp scramble. That way a 'bombing run' would involve warping in, firing, waiting for the torps to land while aligning, then bugging out to set up for the next one. Problem is, they are going to be blown up fairly quickly if targeted, but then, that could be part of the price you pay for flying a big gun with engines.

Reggie Stoneloader
Poofdinkles
Posted - 2007.08.30 05:53:00 - [5]
 

Why make them train for citadel torps? Just put a capital weapon of the racially appropriate flavor on there.

Volare Fortis
Encephalopathy
Posted - 2007.08.30 07:23:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader
Why make them train for citadel torps? Just put a capital weapon of the racially appropriate flavor on there.


While they could take that direction, which would be a bit like taking the spinal weapon suggestion elsewhere in this forum and applying it to a new destroyer instead of a cruiser, this is intended to be an evolution of the stealth bomber, and all of the races use cruise missiles on those.

Lorewise, I would have no problem with different weapon types. Slapping a mega beam or a giant gun on a destroyer would be possible also, assuming the entire ship is rebuilt to have the grid/cap/stabilizers whatever to fire it.

Iboku Kaeane
Amarr
Royal House of Kaeane
Posted - 2007.08.30 10:55:00 - [7]
 

I'd suggest going with-

Destroyer bonus: 5% cit torp "type" damage, 10% cit torp velocity
Hvy Bomber bonus: 25% agility, 10% signature radius decrease
Role bonus 99% cpu decrease fro citadel torp laucnhers
50% decrease in cloaked velocity penalty

2 Launchers 0 turrets

3 high
4 med
2 low
for minm/cald

3 high
2 med
4 low
For amarr/gall

Carmizan
DOCS RUFF RIDERS
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2007.08.30 11:52:00 - [8]
 

Yeah I like this idea, but may I take this down a different route.

Everyone seems to be going down about the tanking ability of the ship, why not increase the speed of the ships. Then the tanking ability would not be required.

This would make this ship a bit of a hybrid taking the use of heavy weapons like the Stealth Bomber and the speed advantage of an Interceptor, therefore reducing the ability of ships to target the ship while making it's run to hit a capital ship.

A'ruhn
Caldari
Nation of Muppets
Posted - 2007.08.30 13:03:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: A''ruhn on 30/08/2007 13:03:46
The only problem with a speed tank is it'd be too easy to abuse.

Get a bunch of these ships, speed tank them, and then gang-bang a cap ship. Yeah, its more realistic, but you'd have every cap-ship pilot and their entire family crying their eyes out.

Way I see it, give them an assault frigate type resistances, but more maneuverable, with as someone said a warp strength mod. Also give them a few less "tanking slots" than their races relevant assault ships. Gives them the ability to take -some- hits, but they wont be in any way shape or form able to stand around and slug it out. Also, remove the stealth gimmick, we have Stealth bombers for that, this is the big, nasty brother.

Warp in, launch the torp, and then GTFO to set up for your next bombing run.

Volare Fortis
Encephalopathy
Posted - 2007.08.30 16:45:00 - [10]
 

I would not want a cloaking bonus for the ship. Of course, if someone wanted to fit a non-covops cloak onto it, they could do so.

Looking at it in that light, it would be better to slap another launcher slot on it, instead of the one turret slot (for a less Stratofortress feel). That way the cloak would roughly halve the ship's DPS.

The skilled use of this ship class would involve the ability to set up and execute bombing runs. Sticking around on the field of battle slinging citadels while the Intys burn over and scram you would be the worst idea ever. Get in, launch, start getting out. Repeat.

As far as the tanking goes, that would take some testing. In my opinion, they should be just about as tough as interdictors.

Valharu
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:13:00 - [11]
 

Give a Bomber Destroyer the same bonus that a Stealth Bombers has but switch out the Cruise missils for Torpedos.

Sinking 3 Rage Torps into a Capitol ships is nice and it is still very useful vs Battleships.

I don't mind the spinal mount theory but you have to be careful that it doesnt turn the ship into a ultra cheap version of its big brother which can be easily abused and make Dreads obsolete cost wise.


Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:20:00 - [12]
 

First, it will be useless w/o siege, capital weapons are hardly overrated.
Second, if this is supposed to be dps stuff then why it got tanking bonus too ?
And speed bonus ? U fit CAPITAL modules on it, it should be slow and dumb.

pandymen
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:02:00 - [13]
 

If its a heavy bomber, then it should be like every other heavy bomber irl...at least the old school ones....rather defenseless. Bring a swarm of these in to take on a cap ship, but you better be sure you have enough ewar/dps to back them up, otherwise they will, and should, just get popped. The enemy fleet would have to think if they would rather pop the bombers, the tacklers, or the battleships wreaking havoc on their support fleet.

Carmizan
DOCS RUFF RIDERS
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2007.08.31 07:05:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Valharu
Give a Bomber Destroyer the same bonus that a Stealth Bombers has but switch out the Cruise missils for Torpedos.

Sinking 3 Rage Torps into a Capitol ships is nice and it is still very useful vs Battleships.

I don't mind the spinal mount theory but you have to be careful that it doesnt turn the ship into a ultra cheap version of its big brother which can be easily abused and make Dreads obsolete cost wise.




Have thought about this idea more I have to agree with you Valharu Citadel Torpedos would be too much on this ship and it should be torpedos fitted, but maybe add another launcher too make it four.

Timbershiverer
Posted - 2007.08.31 09:22:00 - [15]
 

Why not just go the whole hog and change the ship into a kamikaze/fire boat concept?

Heavy bomber, the ship is the weapon. It's slow, relatively tough and can't mount waepons. It does, however, do citadel torp damage with an explosion velocity bonus when it blows up. To detonate it has to ram a targetted ship (or be within 500 m).

For RP rationalisation we say the pod ejects just prior to impact and it's a shaped charge.

Introduce torp spec. requirements as well as t2 destroyer. Don't make it overly expensive as a ship - the weapon is expensive enough and the fact that you're effectively ejecting from your ship next to an enemy.

VoYvod
Imperial Crusade Extremists.
Posted - 2007.08.31 10:15:00 - [16]
 

there is no point , you need a siege module for it to benefit otherwise it would just tickle them and a t2 destroyer with siege mode would just be quite ******ed :)


Cedric Diggory
Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps
Posted - 2007.08.31 10:35:00 - [17]
 

Sort of relevant, so I'll post here. The idea is for a Destroyer with oversized weaponry: weak, but with a high damage potential. This is not my own idea, but is taken from this thread

Quote:
Amaar:
3 High (Turret Hardpoints)
2 Mid
5 Low
180 CPU
80 Power Grid
800 Structure
1000 Armor
600 Shield
17.5% reduction in power grid use for medium energy turrets per level
5% Bonus to armour resistance per level

Caldari:
3 High (Missile Hardpoints)
5 Mid
2 Low
220 CPU
60 Power Grid
800 Structure
600 Armor
1000 Shield
12.5% reduction in power grid use for heavy missile and heavy assault missile launchers per level
5% bonus to shield resistance per level

Gallente:
4 High (4 Turret Hardpoints, 2 Missile Hardpoints)
3 Mid
3 Low
190 CPU
70 Power Grid
800 Structure
800 Armor
800 Shield
17.5% reduction in power grid use for Medium Hybrid turrets per level
5% to medium hybrid turret damage per level

Minmatar:
4 High (4 Turret Hardpoints, 2 Missile Hardpoints)
3 Mid
3 Low
190 CPU
80 Power Grid
800 Structure
800 Armor
800 Shield
17.5% reduction in power grid use for medium projectile turrets per level
5% bonus to medium projectile turret damage per level

Volare Fortis
Encephalopathy
Posted - 2007.08.31 12:55:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Volare Fortis on 31/08/2007 12:56:18
Originally by: Valandril
First, it will be useless w/o siege, capital weapons are hardly overrated.



Originally by: VoYvod
there is no point , you need a siege module for it to benefit otherwise it would just tickle them and a t2 destroyer with siege mode would just be quite ******** :)



Yes, a siege module would not be at all appropriate. Compared to the Phoenix, with 3 launcher slots and with the siege module active, each bomber would do, what, 10%-ish of the damage with two launcher slots, without the siege bonus? (2/3*6.25)

So a squadron of five bombers would hit close to half of the dps of a Phoenix in siege mode, if my estimation is even close. Not a dread pilot (yet) so I do not have any hard numbers to back it up.

I would think that a substantial addition in burst firepower. Attack with one or two, and you will be tickling them, but ideally this ship would be utilized in small groups.

Volare Fortis
Encephalopathy
Posted - 2007.08.31 13:01:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: pandymen
(bring other ships too)


Definitely. Flying around with just a wing of bombers would get you very dead indeed. Without a fleet for them to support, their utility would be quite low.

Menellaix
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.08.31 15:45:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Volare Fortis
Definitely. Flying around with just a wing of bombers would get you very dead indeed. Without a fleet for them to support, their utility would be quite low.


Are you sure?

Altrunac Cordalt
Posted - 2007.08.31 19:01:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Altrunac Cordalt on 31/08/2007 19:11:26
Edited by: Altrunac Cordalt on 31/08/2007 19:11:12
Agreed. A ship with little or no tank but big guns. Swings and balances.

As to the use they could be put to would be in a gang. Each ship hitting at base amounts of 1800 before bonuses. 10 T2 hvy bombers delivering 18000. etc etc. In and out.

The target will be ready and aware of another strike and prepare it's defences so 10 becomes 8/9. It would take a while but feasable. And these are base numbers plus only using a small gang/wing/fleet. Combine this with a cloaked warp in point would reduce the torps flight time and therfore the time before warping off.

Also a reduced cargo hold (reduced torp carrying capacity) to increase the agility/speed. And no drone capacity.

I really like this idea and would enjoy persuing such a ship.

velocity7
Posted - 2007.08.31 20:39:00 - [22]
 

I'm in support of this idea... just make sure an interceptor can take out heavy bombers. That way, we can have fighter/bomber wings, and voila, we're back to the roots of space combat that we should have had a long time ago! Very Happy

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2007.08.31 21:10:00 - [23]
 

Citadel torp launcher has base price of 46m. I wuldn't put 3 in a no-tank ship just to deliver 3 shots in an enemy capital.

Capital size weapons have about 2 (and a bit) times better damage potential then T2 with T1 ammo. I'd rather shoot 6x normal torps then 3x citadel torps, especially that a destroyer with 3 citadel launchers will cost more to loose (46m*3 not insured), have less (no) tank and same or less firepower, while needing more skills.

So if anything, they should shoot normal torps fom normal siege launchers, with very high rof, lowered barrel (less torps in launcher) and perhaps 20 sec reload time.

Uber damge for a buck designs ted to have also another problem - they might be abused in suicide ganking.

Volare Fortis
Encephalopathy
Posted - 2007.08.31 22:17:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Citadel torp launcher has base price of 46m. I wuldn't put 3 in a no-tank ship just to deliver 3 shots in an enemy capital.



Yeah, that would break the concept. Either the new citadel launchers for bombers would have to be about 10% that price, or we would be out of luck.

Running siege launchers on the heavy bomber would work too. Making it a smaller, more fragile/agile Raven, with a specialty for chewing on capships would stay solidly to design, and be fun to play, even if you get popped as quickly as the 'dictors.

Ideally, I would want to test both concepts. Hey, while I'm dreaming, right?

VoYvod
Imperial Crusade Extremists.
Posted - 2007.09.01 10:09:00 - [25]
 

lets say they do bring this into the game , when somebody wants to siege pos's or kill some capitals , what do you think you would see there? a fleet of stealth bombers which are relativley cheap and easier to train for and dont have to sit there for 10 minutes or some dreadnaughts which are pretty expensive long training , and has to sit around for 10 minutes until its siege mode cycles then it can move.

if they made a stealth bomber with large turrets - now that would be worth considering being every race can use turrets and wouldnt be ridiculous

Volare Fortis
Encephalopathy
Posted - 2007.09.01 13:52:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: VoYvod
lets say they do bring this into the game , when somebody wants to siege pos's or kill some capitals , what do you think you would see there?


The dreads have far more defense than even a fleet of heavy bombers. I would bring both, if I had it my way- dreads for sustained dps, and warp the bombers in and out to add their burst between reloads.

With active pos defense and pilots taking control of modules, popping heavy bombers would be a lot easier than chewing on a dread forever. With a skilled bomber squadron warping in and out dropping torps it might not be so easy, but that takes more coordination and effort than setting /siege and shoveling in the strontium.

So far as killing capitals, that is what a pack of heavy bombers are meant to do. Every pilot who hops in a heavy bomber is one less support ship, so there is an opportunity cost to bringing them along.

Also, you're never going to take out even a lone dread with a few interceptors. Some careless heavy bombers, on the other hand...


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only