Jump To Lightspeed Archive
Thread: Interesting analogy regarding the Actis Interceptor
FIVER wrote:
I think the analogy is flawed.....
People who say the Actis is an antique are wrong too.....but it shouldn't be able to compete against newer fighters. I think you cherry picked two planes......20-25 years is usually HUGE technologically....
Who'd win...WW1 biplanes versus WW2 P-38s? Those same P-38s versus Vietnam era Phantoms? Those same Phantoms against F-16s.......get my drift? all about the same time difference.
Also, the "updated parts" argument is flawed....put steatlh materials on a Phantom? never!....its angles and structure would make them useless. Put jet engines on a p-38?..the wings would break off.
Finally, the use of 35 or 40 year old fighters in our "greatest" navy/air force does not support your cause. It is a testament to the poor technology of our threat nations. Our country flies these craft becasue they don't have to fly newer ones! Our enemies are flying OLDER LESS ADVANCED planes. When the army canceled the Comanche helicopter project, they were not saying that the current Kiowas/Apaches were better then the Comanche, they were saying the Kiowas/Apaches are superior to the competition. We have not designed a new tank in 30 years either, because no nation has designed a tank superior to the M1 since its inception.....That's a key distinction that explains seemingly old technology.
Older ships have value. They can be deadly, but they should not be able to defeat a much newer ship, with a similar role/mission, when all else is equal. An old space superiority fighter SHOULD lose to a much newer space superiroity fighter.
I understand that this is a game. So realism be damned.......I want to fly my jedi starfighter like in the movie....so we have to let realism slide....just don't try to justify it with real world logic, because it will fail.
You are forgetting one thing, and I respectfully wish to remind you: This is Star Wars- they've been making ships (supposedly) for thousands of years. We've been building planes for merely a hundred. So we're bound to find more breakthroughs in fifty years after our first flight than they could in even a couple hundred. It's like a sword- once you find the best metal and the best way to make it, you're not going to find much else.
Same with Star Wars ships- there's a point where 20 years advancement isn't all that much.
Vulthoom wrote:
I disagree that the F-14 is a proper comparison to an F/A-18. The F-14's primary role is a long range intercepter. The F/A-18's primary roll is a closer range fighter, ground support aircraft. While I agree that the F/A-18 can serve the role of interceptor, that is not it's primary mission. That is for the F-14. And when compared to the premier interceptor in the world today, the F-22, it pales. Strapping some bombs onto it doesn't change what it is/was meant to be. And I will agree, the JSF is way overpowered.
Then why is the F/A-18 replacing the F-14? Is the F/A-18 replacing the A-6 and the F-14 is being phased out with no replacement?
A bunch of JSFs and B22s shooting at each other?
or
A bunch of Rebel Alphabet fighters battling TIEs?
But alas, this will have no effect, as Imperial aces, and the HALF of neutral and the quarter of reb aces, that have the JSF treat it like their CHILD. Don't believe me. Drop a tell to the next person you see in Deep space in a JSF or a crimson tie. They will let loose with a string of reasons why THEY are uber pilots and you suck.
Let's paraphrase for example the conversation I recently had. I'm sure many of you have had it before.
Corvalis: Hey, I wish Imperials would use tie interceptors like the time period would dictate. It would sure be more fair against my Awing
Rithia: cry rebel cry.
Corvalis: you really have to admit that the ships are really unbalanced. There were no JSFs in this time frame anyway, let alone UBER Jsfs that could fit anything on their TINY little frames with no reduction in performance. If they wanna keep the ship that's fine, but they should nerf it to 60K mass and then the people who really LOVE it for the ship itself will keep it as a specialty ship. I myself refuse to use a Bellbulab for the same reason, which is why I am in my a-wing. I enjoy HAVING to be creative with the loadout. Gives me a sense of accomplishment when I can actually compete against a far superior foe. But it IS irritating to see JSFs everywhere, I liked this when it was a STAR WARS rpg game, not the Revenge of the Sith Arcade
Rithia: It's not my fault that you choose to suck. I am not going to fly anything else until all my competition stops flying JSFs or Bells. Plus good pilots can easily kill JSFs in A wings.
Corvalis: oh yeah, they are an even match Eyeroll. Which is why you see A wings EVERYwhere, and every ace pilot has one, and you can put any equipment on them, and they have an infintesimaly small hitbox, and they are the most maneuverable ship in the game, and, oh wait, that's the JSF my bad.
Rithia cry rebel cry.
Corvalis: Well enjoy your arcadde game. I'm going to try to pretend this is still a game based on the Star Wars universe. A stretch I know
Vulthoom wrote:
Well, win or lose, I'll fly my 50k mass interceptor anyway. I'll probably lose a lot of the time, but when I win, it'll be with style.
I fly a standard X, myself.