| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Agent Kira
    |
Posted - 2008.08.26 22:32:00 -
[1]
Ok, so i went a bit overboard. But, for the past week or so i have bee n collecting data with the help of my corp and have written a study on the role of stealth bombers in the eve universe.
A word of warning...this isnt somthing for the gankers/griefers as im sure you wont make it past the first paragraph.
For those of you that play eve for its strategic element, and especially those that have written guides for missiles, mining, and other stuff, this is my contribution and i hope it you find it interesting and/or helpful. It can be found HERE
I didnt want to spend a whole lot of time doing it, but i wanted to work out if a covert ops fleet would be viable. One thing led to another and i ended up doing a complete study.
This is the final document. I have no intention of updating it, and will therefore become out dated as time goes by and the CCP gods change things. If there is somthing in there you can use, or you learn something, then im glad to have helped. If not, sorry to have bored you to death.
|
Xanos Blackpaw
Amarr
The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 23:06:00 -
[2]
thats briliant mate!
the bombers is my favorite ships(can fly all of them, like the manticore and hound the best).
anyway, that and harrassing the enemy force is what they should be used for...like picking of stragglers or small ships.
the only real problem with bombs that i can see is the price and the damage...you think that something like that should atleast destroy all frigs and drones/fighters in the blast radious.
they should also bring the price down to a mil each or so...the price right now is WAY to high for the effect they got.
you are simply much better of fitting cruise missiles. atleast if the bombs could pop frigs and drones/fighters with ease they would be used in anti-carrier/anti-support roles. right now they are kinda meh.
my favorite thing to do when i'm bored is to fit a quick locking bomber and head out to sit oustide a hostile station to pop small ships comming in and out. nothing is as fun as being hunted for it and just avoiding being decloaked by the interceptor looking for you by less than 1000m!
Playing minmatar is "like going down a flight of stairs in a office chair firing an Uzi". |
Spaztick
Canadian Imperial Armaments
EVESpace
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 23:24:00 -
[3]
Excellent novella. Would read again.
But seriously, more people should have some type of spacer in their sigs to show it's not part of the post.
 |
Elhina Novae
Destruction Reborn
CORPVS DELICTI
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 23:31:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Elhina Novae on 26/08/2008 23:33:28
Nice read up... But I would change something and make it 3 x Cruise Launcher at all times. Except for that really nice guide, but currently Stealthbombers are best with 3 x Cruises and long range with a Passive Targeter really... Bombs sux and are not worth using.
------------
 Originally by: Boz Well
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
...
There's an Amarr problem?
Nothing that can't be solved by more Minmatar nerfs.
|
Agent Kira
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 23:49:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Agent Kira on 26/08/2008 23:49:26
Originally by: Elhina Novae
Edited by: Elhina Novae on 26/08/2008 23:33:28
Nice read up... But I would change something and make it 3 x Cruise Launcher at all times. Except for that really nice guide, but currently Stealth bombers are best with 3 x Cruises and long range with a Passive Targeter really... Bombs sux and are not worth using.
I have actually stated that the cruise test was calculated with 3 cruise launchers in mind, even tho the test involved only 1 launcher being fired. The 'Test Bomber' was exactly what it says on the tin. Not my usual fit. Usually i fly with either 3 x cruise or 1 x bomb launcher. I was in fact testin a bunch of other stuff such as strike range, targeting time, etc... which i have not publsihed hense the mixed loadout (just to save me the time of fitting). If i had published everything, my choice of loadout would make more sense. Gotta keep some secrets :P
|
Liang Nuren
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 00:48:00 -
[6]
This is interesting. Have you looked into the use of stealth bombers as forward assaults via covert cynos and black ops?
-Liang
--
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
-- Mahatma Gandhi |
Dr Cidolfus
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 01:03:00 -
[7]
Interesting way to look into bombers, but you've overlooked most of the usefulness of bombs. There are situations where they are perfectly viable, and even preferable in a fight, you just have to think a bit more.
|
Liang Nuren
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 01:07:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Dr Cidolfus
Interesting way to look into bombers, but you've overlooked most of the usefulness of bombs. There are situations where they are perfectly viable, and even preferable in a fight, you just have to think a bit more.
The obvious answer to this is busting gatecamps. Problems:
- Bombs are too expensive for this.
- If you pop, the bomb doesn't go off.
- Small ships are easily able to get outside of the AOE or are largely unaffected by them
- Large ships have enough HP that even 2-3 bombs isn't really anything more than an annoyance.
The other obvious answer to this is lockbreaker and neut bombs in capital engagements, where they are indeed useful.
-Liang
--
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
-- Mahatma Gandhi |
Gimpb
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 01:36:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Gimpb on 27/08/2008 01:36:18
It seems like the lockbreakers could be especially useful for fleet sniper grind fests. I haven't had a chance to try it personally but I'd like to sometime. Unfortunately, I seem to lag more than most people in that situation... not good for bombers. 
Originally by: Liang Nuren
The other obvious answer to this is lockbreaker and neut bombs in capital engagements, where they are indeed useful.
-Liang
Capital engagements? Out of curriosity, why do you mention that specifically?
|
Liang Nuren
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 01:59:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Gimpb
Edited by: Gimpb on 27/08/2008 01:36:18
It seems like the lockbreakers could be especially useful for fleet sniper grind fests. I haven't had a chance to try it personally but I'd like to sometime. Unfortunately, I seem to lag more than most people in that situation... not good for bombers.
Originally by: Liang Nuren
The other obvious answer to this is lockbreaker and neut bombs in capital engagements, where they are indeed useful.
-Liang
Capital engagements? Out of curriosity, why do you mention that specifically?
A couple of reasons:
- Capitals run on capacitor (to RR, to local rep, and to fire)
- Capitals don't fit cap boosters and easily die when capped out
-Liang
--
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
-- Mahatma Gandhi |
|
trixterr
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 01:59:00 -
[11]
Edited by: trixterr on 27/08/2008 02:00:08
what target were you firing at with the bombs? and i don't think you did your calculations right if you're saying it will take 77 bombers firing bombs at the same time or even in a row to kill a target unless you are trying to kill a pos with them. any battleship or below will i would almost be sure pop after about the 7th or 8th bomb hitting it (though this is alot of bombers you would need, it is nowhere near the 77 bombers you listed. maybe i misread that whole part. though it would be awesome to see, but i think if they're firing on a target that has a resist of 70% it would do about 150k+ of damage which isn't bad at all
also does anyone know if bombs can penetrate pos shields and do damage to any inside? or is it like smartbombs?
|
Rifter Drifter
Minmatar
Greatly Reducing Inflation Every Fight
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 02:04:00 -
[12]
Thanks for doing this 10/10
 |
Liang Nuren
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 02:07:00 -
[13]
Originally by: trixterr
Edited by: trixterr on 27/08/2008 02:00:08
what target were you firing at with the bombs? and i don't think you did your calculations right if you're saying it will take 77 bombers firing bombs at the same time or even in a row to kill a target unless you are trying to kill a pos with them. any battleship or below will i would almost be sure pop after about the 7th or 8th bomb hitting it (though this is alot of bombers you would need, it is nowhere near the 77 bombers you listed. maybe i misread that whole part. though it would be awesome to see, but i think if they're firing on a target that has a resist of 70% it would do about 150k+ of damage which isn't bad at all
also does anyone know if bombs can penetrate pos shields and do damage to any inside? or is it like smartbombs?
IIRC, it is smartbombs. The "target" in question is listed in the introductory paragraph. I believe it is a POS mod... cyno field generator or something.
-Liang
--
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
-- Mahatma Gandhi |
trixterr
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 02:27:00 -
[14]
i think the initial purpose of the bombers was more for gang warfare instead of pos warfare, but either way i think that the cost of either purpose is a total failure. just to kill a battleship with bombs it would cost somewhere in the range of 50million.
now if it was a gang of battleships say 25-30 all sitting within range of a bomb (sitting on a gate) then 50mil for probably couple billion worth of damage isn't too bad, but it is very difficult to get that to work correctly
|
OMG'Kittens
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 02:38:00 -
[15]
Lol, it's on a white background. It must be serious business.
Copy and paste that "study" into the forums and make it a post like every other self righteous "study" thread.
Stop f**king around with external links in some vain attempt to add credibility to just Another Whine Post.
|
OMG'Kittens
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 02:48:00 -
[16]
Edited by: OMG''Kittens on 27/08/2008 02:54:12
The purpose of this report is to inform anyone who is interested on the viability of creating a stealth bomber squad, fleet, or entire corp. It is not to æ*****Æ about how good/bad the bombers are. Instead it is just to look at the bombers as they are now, with their current capabilities.
This study was conducted by members of the same corp. who initially wanted to investigate how effective they would be as stealth bomber pilots on a strategic level. The entire study was conducted on the test server during EMPYREAN AGE Ver. 5.11.61417. Over time, CCP may change certain aspects which were taken into account during this study, and therefore this study will become outdated. I have no intention of updating this once I have completed it.
During the study, many capability tests were performed by single and multiple bombers, against a variety of targets that may be deemed strategic.
Some of the questions raised were :
1 > EFFECTIVNESS - How effective will we be against various targets ranging from the simple Tech 1 hauler, all the way up to the larger target of Jump bridges, cyno jammers, POS defenses and even a POS itself.
2> PAYLOAD - Would an entire covert wing be strong enough and capable enough to inflict enough damage on enemy installations and other targets to be considered strategically viable.
3> CONFIGURATION - Would a Covert Bomber be better equipped with a bank of 3 x Cruise missile launchers, or 2 x cruise launchers and a single bomb launcher.
4> ROLE - What would be the best targets for a covert ops fleet to engage.
For the purpose of this report, the æTEST BOMBERÆ used to perform all tests was a Manticore, and was configured as follows :
2 x Cruise Missile Launcher II û Caldari Navy Wrath (at all times)
1 x Bomb Launcher Concussion Bomb (at all times)
1 x Improved Cloaking Device II
3 x Sensor Booster I (With targeting range scripts)
1 x Partial Weapon Navigation Transmitter
Ballistic Control System II
Overdrive Injector System II
Targets Engaged were as follows :
Raven
Cynosaural Generator
Cynosaural System Jammer
Torpedo Battery
Cruise Missile Battery
However for the purpose of this study, we will use the System Cyno Jammer Aray as our main target. Reason being this is roughly the same as a Jump Bridge, and a Cyno Generator, which were also considered viable targets. For the purpose of this paper, the System Cyno Jammer Array will be refered to as æthe targetÆ.
Also, the total time firing at æthe targetÆ will be referred to as æengagement timeÆ.
|
OMG'Kittens
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 02:49:00 -
[17]
Edited by: OMG''Kittens on 27/08/2008 02:50:04
The Bomb Test
First up is the Concussion bomb. Able to deliver a blanket payload to any ship within a 15km radius of its æground zeroÆ. Before even undocking, the ROF for the bomb launcher already caused some concern amongst us. One of the points raised was the fact that it could possibly take a lot longer to kill a target with bombs than it would Cruise Missiles, and we were slightly shocked as to how ineffective they actually were considering we had a suspicion they would. Although not as bad as we discovered.
A single bomber pilot executed a number of bombing runs on the target. 15 bombs were launched at the target. All successfully hit the target. From this we obtained an average of 7680.0 hit points per bomb. The bombs being launched at a rate of 1 per 136 seconds (2 min 15 secs).
In order for a single bomber pilot to destroy the target, assuming this rate of fire is constant (which means no evasive maneuvers, warping of, cloaking etcà), it would take approx. 3.2 days (3 x 24 hours) to destroy the target. During this time the bomber pilot would require a total of no less than 2084 Concussion bombs.
Calculation :
The target = 16Æ000Æ000 hit Points (Armor and shield combined)
Each Bomb = 7680.0 Hit Points
ROF = 136 Seconds
Number Of Bombs Required : 16Æ000Æ000 ˜ 7680.0 = (2083.3) 2084 Bombs
Total Engagement Time : 2084 x 136 = 283Æ424 Seconds or 4722.2 Minutes or 78 Hours or 3.2 Days
Total cost of Bombs Required = 2084 x 8.8Million Isk = 18Æ330.4 Billion Isk
Further calculations revealed that to get the engagement time to under an hour, it would require a fleet of 77 bombers all configured as the test bomber. A problem that became apparent was logistics. To complete the mission in under 1 hour it would be required that each of the 77 bombers carry 28 bombs. However each bomber can only carry 4 bombs (without fitting expanders), 2 in the launcher, and 2 in the cargo bay. Out of the 2084 bombs required to complete the mission, only 308 could be carried by the bombers (4 x 77). To carry the remaining bombs (1776 bombs) would require the equivalent in cargo space of 9 badger IIÆs all fitted with cargo expander IIÆs and cargo bay optimization rigs. The only way to overcome this would be to have a friendly POS or Station close by.
Total cost of the Bomb launcher fleet would cost the following (Not including Modules) :
77 x Manticore @ 14.4 mil Isk = 1101.1 Mil Isk
9 x Badger 2 @ 1.6 mil Isk = 14.4 Mil Isk
2084 Bombs @ 8.8 Mil Isk = 18339.2 Mil Isk
Total : 19454.7 Mil Isk / 19.4 Bil Isk
|
OMG'Kittens
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 02:49:00 -
[18]
Edited by: OMG''Kittens on 27/08/2008 02:49:52
The Cruise Missile Test
After the bomb test we moved on to the missile test. Missile of choice would be the Caldari Navy Wrath. T2 missiles were not used due to the cost and the range penalties.
The cruise launcher has a higher rate of fire than the bomb launcher.
Again using the cynosaural jammer array as the target, we began the cruise attack runs. 50 cruise were fired at the target, which gave us an average of 907.9 damage caused per missile. Each missile could be fired at a ROF of 10.3 seconds.
Using these figures, we were able to conclude that it would take no less than 2 days of constant bombing to destroy the target (2 x 24 hours). During this time, no less than 17Æ626 CN Wrath would be required at a cost of 28.7 Mil Isk.
The first advantage of cruise missiles over bombs is that up to 3 cruise launchers can be fitted. This reduces the time for a single pilot by a factor of 3. 48 hours becomes 16 hours for a single bomber. This would also mean that a maximum of 17 bombers would be required in order to destroy the target in 1 hour. This already indicates a better logistical advantage than with bombs.
To complete the mission in 1 hour, it would require that each of the 17 bombers carry 1036 CN wrath cruise missiles. Each of the bombers could carry 81 (3 x 27) missiles in their launchers, which would leave 1015 cruise to be carried in the cargo holds of each bomber. This is easily done with room to spare, even if it isnÆt that much.
This would also mean that a team of 17 bombers would not require the logistical support of the 9 badgers (not that any sane person would), or a supporting POS and or Station. It would enable the squad to fly totally independent of any outside support.
Total Cruise Missile fleet cost (Not Including modules):
17 x Manticore @ 14.4 mil Isk = 244.8 Mil Isk
17Æ626 @ 1Æ600.00 Isk = 28.2 Mil Isk
Total : 273.4 Mil Isk
Conclusion
The idea of a strategic bomber is ôprimarily designed for long range strike missions with bombs against strategic targets such as bridges, factories, ship yards, and cities, in order to disrupt the enemies war effortö (Wikipedia.org)
However after analyzing the results from the testing, it has become apparent that the use of the bomber in a pure strategic bomber role would be very costly. In most cases, it would be more viable to employ the use of cruise missiles instead of the bombs, mainly for financial reasons. Why spend 19.4 Bil when you can spend less than 2% of that to do the same job.
It boils down to æifÆ the corp/alliance who are attempting the attack regards their target as a strategically important target, enough to throw a war in their favor, or help to push it into their favor. For example, a jump bridge being destroyed would prevent any Enemy Capital reinforcements arriving on the field while trying to take down a POS, Station, or completing another similar mission by the main body of the fleet.
Unless there are significant changes to the attributs of bombers and/or bomber ordinance, or are part of a larger alliance that has the resources to budget for such a squad, then it would be very difficult for a covert ops wing/fleet/corp to be financially viable. The setup cost alone for the initial mission would be very hard to swallow.
At a push, the Bomb launcher bombers may be used to assist in taking down a cap ship, however, due to the blast radius this would hinder any short range (weapon wise) ship that would be assaulting the same Cap ship, as well as any interceptor (ie. scramblers, webbers, not necessarily t2 frigs) holding the cap ship in place. They are however very effective against gate camps in a small group of 3 or 4.
Other data from the study revealed that a maximum of 7 bombs could be release simoultaniously. Any more and the bombs would emit enough damage to kill themselves. (in theory) This forces the fleet of 77 Bombers to assault a target in waves of no more than 7, which further increases the time of the whole mission.
|
Firkragg
Blue Labs
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 03:05:00 -
[19]
Wow i love the way you managed to miss the point entirely about bombers and seems to get really caught up on damage bombs
1) bombs solo arent that useful. What is useful is when they are paire with things like falcons, arazus, and rapiers. These ships can get the tackle and the bombers supply the dps (since two bombers give similar dps to a raven)
2) you havent mentioned the black ops bs jump bridge. This allows force recons and stealth bombers to jump to covert cynos which can lead to some highly entertaining situations
3) Damage bombs arent the only bombs. Lockbreak bombs are good for giving you some breathing room against RR gangs (e.g lockbreak bomb a group of carriers then stick a damp on each of them with a scan res script)
void bombs neut some nice amount of cap and can cause trouble for certain types of gangs (im thinking nano gangs off the top of my head but tbh this isnt really something i have played around with much)
As you can say bombers fufill a certain roll quite well and a group fo them can do decent hit and run ops in hostile space. What i hate though is when people bring them for normal gangs and fleets and think they are being useful. The arguement that they have half the dps of a raven is stupid when you die after 2 volleys so there for will be applying this dps for all of 15 seconds while something locks and pops you.
Anyways hope that infomation is useful and adds to your study
|
Atsuko Ratu
Caldari
VSP Corp.
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 03:10:00 -
[20]
Originally by: OMG'Kittens
Lol, it's on a white background. It must be serious business.
Copy and paste that "study" into the forums and make it a post like every other self righteous "study" thread.
Stop f**king around with external links in some vain attempt to add credibility to just Another Whine Post.
Effectively confused me 
I liked the external link better than your posting of it.
while your falcon pilot warps off in a pod, baffled at why his FC Borat can't learn to not pyramid-quote.
|
|
OMG'Kittens
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 03:10:00 -
[21]
Edited by: OMG''Kittens on 27/08/2008 03:15:02
I'll leave the formatting up to him :S
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 03:54:00 -
[22]
It's an interesting take on the subject, but the conclusion is hardly unexpected. The virtues of a bomber fleet, under ideal circumstances would represent a strategic first strike weapon. Unfortunately, a host of factors make the viability of the strategic bomber questionable at best.
1) Lag - THE primary reason advanced maneuvers stay out of fleet combat. In the largest battles, where sudden application of strategic force would be most effective, you'll find that the critical element of timing will be nearly impossible to achieve when you consider limits of communication exacerbated by lag.
2) Damage output - Simply put bombers don't deliver sufficient damage to make them a strategic first strike asset. The low average Damage over time output of a bomber makes them best suited to attacking smaller, weaker targets - a role that other ships can do more cheaply. The only difference is bombers get a potentially useful cloaking bonus that unfortunately only works well in an ambush mode.
3) Glass Cannon Philosphy - The stealth bomber is the epitome of the glass cannon approach to ship design. Simply put, while they deliver staggering damage for a frigate they sacrifice all ability to absorb damage in return. In short, the bomber is a hard hitting single use weapon system.
4) Lack of combat flexibility - Bombers by and large have few tricks at their disposal. They attack with phenominal range for a frigate combined with amazing damage for the hull class. But firepower alone is hardly a trick. Minor electronic warfare is the only real trick, and often represents the only real defense bombers have.
So if the bomber doesn't work as a strategic asset, what can it be used for? In all reality, beyond the obvious industrial harrasment and frigate killing roles, the only true use of the bomber lies in it's anti-support capabilities.
Is anti-support a role that's sufficient for a ship called a "bomber"? In my book, not really. Perhaps the solution lies in a "heavy bomber". A cruiser would be an obvious choice for such a ship's hull. Rather than arm themselves with cruise missiles, a heavy bomber could come supplied with citadel torpedos - already dramaticaly increasing their offensive potential against strategic targets such as POS's and capital ships. They can still maintain the glass cannon approach, and the bonus structure could be applied in such a way that the weapon system would be ineffective against smaller ships. Afterall, if the intended targets are capital class ships and stations, the explosion radius can be a dozen kilometers with no loss of effectiveness.
|
Artemis Rose
Varion Galactic
Accord Corporate Enterprise Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 05:16:00 -
[23]
Well written, however, comparing EVE to RL is kinda.. weak imho.
__________________________________________________
Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space
Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine. WTB Purple Nerf Bat. |
Ranvaldy
Amarr
Hungarian Space Defenders
Omega Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 09:02:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Artemis Rose
Well written, however, comparing EVE to RL is kinda.. weak imho.
Well he didnt actually do that but he pointed how ineffective bombs are.
|
Agent Kira
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 11:56:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Dr Cidolfus
Interesting way to look into bombers, but you've overlooked most of the usefulness of bombs. There are situations where they are perfectly viable, and even preferable in a fight, you just have to think a bit more.
Although it is possible, as i have done it myself on many occasions with my crew, this wasnt the point of the study. The study was to examine the correct use of bombers against strategic emplacements. AS for gate camps, why use a bomber, when a fleet of command ships would be alot more effective and you wouldnt need to constantly cloak to avoid loosing your ship. A case of 'RIGHT TOOL FOR THE JOB' really. However i do agree that a group of assault ships, hacs, command ships, or whatever going up against a gate camp would benefit from the assistance of bombers due to the ECM, and NOS bombs mainly, but if a bomber can get off a bomb at a gate camp (before they jump out as they usually hug the gate), then yes this would give the assaulting fleet on the camp a distinct advantage from the start.
|
Jethro Amar
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 12:04:00 -
[26]
I wrote it before in another thread...
Bombs need SIGNIFICANT range increase. 15km seems a lot, but in Eve it can't be considered AOE.
If ccp buffs bombs damage ppl will simply adapt and spread the ships over larger volume of space. Sniping blobbers sitting at 150km from the gate are usually all together within few kilometres. It won't be this way if bombs do any real damage and are popular to use.
Said blob sitting at 150km from gate can just as well sit on a sphere around the gate of 150km radius. Simple calculation of Radius^2 * 4 * Pi gives us the sphere's square area of over 282 000 km2. This is roughly the size of United Kingdom or New Zealand or Texas.
Also if bombs are buffed to be better ranged or deal better damage any fleet noticing incoming bombers will spread even further, as bombers can't warp cloaked.
The choice is to give bombs grid range or at least 100+ km. If applied well this would dramatically change gameplay by reducing blobs. A fleet of 200ppl would be of constant fear of being DD'ed by a bunch of 15 stealthbombers. A fleet of 50 - not as much (less lag = chance to run away, less ships to kill = not as many ppl willing to do the SB stunt). This would solve SB problems and, much more important - blobs problem.
Another way could be to equip them with citadel torpedoes. After all a citadel torpedo is only 0.3 m3 in volume and 1500kg mass according to item database :) (that's much much smaller than World War II era navy torpedoes btw :) ). Make them equip only one or two of them (or a launcher with 95% cap usage for launch) to assault cynojammers, jumpbridges and such if used in numbers. Also younger characters could do something useful in cap battles :). This is what bombers are by definition - strategic assault aircraft used to destroy vital defence systems. Not Eve's 'frigate poppers' :/
Now let me equip my asbestos suit, as flames are coming :D |
Agent Kira
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 12:06:00 -
[27]
Originally by: trixterr
Edited by: trixterr on 27/08/2008 02:00:08
what target were you firing at with the bombs? and i don't think you did your calculations right if you're saying it will take 77 bombers firing bombs at the same time or even in a row to kill a target unless you are trying to kill a pos with them. any battleship or below will i would almost be sure pop after about the 7th or 8th bomb hitting it (though this is alot of bombers you would need, it is nowhere near the 77 bombers you listed. maybe i misread that whole part. though it would be awesome to see, but i think if they're firing on a target that has a resist of 70% it would do about 150k+ of damage which isn't bad at all
Although it is stated right at the beginning of the study, the target was a System Cyno Jammer Array. Reson for this target was also stated.
Although i wasnt going to mention it, the study revealed that in order to pop an unmanned raven, it would require 5-6 bombs. If the raven was manned and tanked by a pro PVP'r then im sure it would take at least double. This would require approx 10 bombs x launch time of 136 seconds = 1360 seconds to take out the raven or 22.6 Minutes. This is for pure sit there and launch one after the other without having to warp away, shield reppers, a corpie tanking the raven, or anything else. 10 bombs would cost 88mil isk. Nearly 90mil isk to take out a single raven that cost only slightly more. Agreed it would also take out anything within the 15km blast radius, but if anyone just sits there for 22.6 minutes without moving is undoubtedly AFK.
only way around this would be to have 10 bombers all launch simoultaniously, however as the study revealed, a maximum of 7 bombs can be launched which would require 2 waves. This would probably beet enough time to hit reppers, call in reinforcments, or any other number of scenarios. From simulations, you to catch your target either of guard on his own, or afk. Bombs can only be used in 0.0 thereore i doubt this would be possible, as most of us in 0.0 are on edge at all times.
also does anyone know if bombs can penetrate pos shields and do damage to any inside? or is it like smartbombs?
|
Agent Kira
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 12:09:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
This is interesting. Have you looked into the use of stealth bombers as forward assaults via covert cynos and black ops?
-Liang
Yes, however without revealing to much information, i can say that they are very effective. I myself fly a widow. An awsome addition to any covert fleet. Opens many doors.
|
Agent Kira
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 12:15:00 -
[29]
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.
|
Agent Kira
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 12:21:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Jethro Amar
I wrote it before in another thread...
Bombs need SIGNIFICANT range increase. 15km seems a lot, but in Eve it can't be considered AOE.
If ccp buffs bombs damage ppl will simply adapt and spread the ships over larger volume of space. Sniping blobbers sitting at 150km from the gate are usually all together within few kilometres. It won't be this way if bombs do any real damage and are popular to use.
Said blob sitting at 150km from gate can just as well sit on a sphere around the gate of 150km radius. Simple calculation of Radius^2 * 4 * Pi gives us the sphere's square area of over 282 000 km2. This is roughly the size of United Kingdom or New Zealand or Texas.
Also if bombs are buffed to be better ranged or deal better damage any fleet noticing incoming bombers will spread even further, as bombers can't warp cloaked.
The choice is to give bombs grid range or at least 100+ km. If applied well this would dramatically change gameplay by reducing blobs. A fleet of 200ppl would be of constant fear of being DD'ed by a bunch of 15 stealthbombers. A fleet of 50 - not as much (less lag = chance to run away, less ships to kill = not as many ppl willing to do the SB stunt). This would solve SB problems and, much more important - blobs problem.
Another way could be to equip them with citadel torpedoes. After all a citadel torpedo is only 0.3 m3 in volume and 1500kg mass according to item database :) (that's much much smaller than World War II era navy torpedoes btw :) ). Make them equip only one or two of them (or a launcher with 95% cap usage for launch) to assault cynojammers, jumpbridges and such if used in numbers. Also younger characters could do something useful in cap battles :). This is what bombers are by definition - strategic assault aircraft used to destroy vital defence systems. Not Eve's 'frigate poppers' :/
Now let me equip my asbestos suit, as flames are coming :D
Only problem is you need to give the bombers the launch range too. Or raather the bombs. but.... a bomb floating 115km for example at a speed of 1250km/s would mean that targets would see it coming a long way off. It would take 92 seconds for the bomb to reach the target. That over a minte and a half. At this rate bomb will need to be revamped totally.Although i agree with your idea in a manor, i believe that it would make bombs over powered and would end up gettin nerfed again.
|
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |