Re: Beta Fighter, can we do it better?
Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:59 am
Seto wrote:Sharing one or two components doesn't mean the entire avionics suite is shared... or even compatible. The Legioss/Alpha is a craft with very different requirements to any other in the setting since it's a close air support attacker rather than a fighter.
To an extent in the real world that is true, however the way Palladium does the "standard avionic/equipment/feature" section is pretty cookie cutter. IINM the BIF shares all the standards with the Alpha, and the Conbat with the Beta. Still if the Alpha shares its Radar systems with another (un-game stat platform) platform it could explain why it would have the capability.
Seto wrote:Potentially, but as the RT version cites "cost and complexity" as reasons for turning down a superior multirole fighter it seems rather unlikely to me that they would deliberately include some unneeded and useless features intended for compatibility with a cancelled project.
While the Beta was canceled circa 2022, the Beta project itself is supposedly not as old as the Alpha (I'd also hazard the docking aspect blows "cost and complexity" out of the water). We also don't know what the planned evolutionary development path of the Alpha was originally going to look like, or how it was changed due to the introduction/cancelation of the Beta or contact with the Invid/aliens. I could see the UEEF attempting to develop a MRM-class missile sized for the Alpha concurrent with it, but the missile could have been canceled like the Beta, but the Alpha retained the radar capability because it would require costly changes and delays to the radar. The AIM-54 and the F-111B had a similar development (though in this realworld case it was the reverse getting canceled).
Seto wrote:It's not my intention to sound rude, but that kind of argument has never not been wishful thinking..
I agree it's highly unlikely well be seeing new material anytime soon, but the option exists is all I am saying.
Seto wrote:Which don't appear to have been anywhere near as effective or powerful as the ones in the Macross Saga...
I suspect two factors could be involved to explain that:
1. There are a variety of warhead yield/sizes if conventional nuclear weapons are anything to go by. So the Conbat might be using a lower yield than used in TMS.
2. The Invid mecha/ships are more resilient than you want to give them credit for
Seto wrote:There are no examples of practical alternatives in the setting.
Really...
LRM sized Drones that Zerg Rush the formation firing into it (either missiles or beam weapons). They have drone technology. They have drone technology that can utilize weapons.
This requires more development, but the "Molecular Vacuum" attack used in TRM (then again they don't need to use missiles, they could just use the fold capable ships) has a radius of 2km. This would require more development in setting by the UEEF (in 2029-30 it appears to be a theory, but that gives them time to develop it for 2038 or 2042 or 2044 since it was validated in 2029-30). Putting them on fighter carried LRM would require a reduction in the size of the Fold Generators (I know the UEEF inherits its Fold drives) or finding an alternate means to generate it.
Cluster Munitions. These weapons are designed to cover a wide area. You might need some tweaks for space combat to be viable.
Zentreadi Gravity Mines. Ramp up the intensity, and pull groups of Invid mecha into the missile and potentially each other.
Seto wrote:The TLEAD/Beta is designed for a close air support role... and none of the enemies it's used against build what would be considered conventional fortifications.
The Invid build Hives and convert locations into Hives, which those small bombs are not going to do much against, even if we ignore their Force Fields. So they are going to need Anti-fortification/building/Force-Field weapons, unless the plan is to fight their way into every hive the hardway.
Seto wrote:Granted, but they were expecting to fight an alien race who had culturally and technologically stagnated, who were in the midst of an energy crisis, and who were used to letting someone else do their fighting for them. The Bioroid is definitely NOT an effective weapon... to the extent that it's rather questionable whether it really IS intended to be a weapon.
The Bioroid effectiveness is best left to another discussion, but given that the UEDF: ASC in 2029 couldn't identify the Bioroids (or the Masters) it really is questionable how the UEEF in 2022 could have properly planned to fight the Masters. It should also be noted that going by the dialogue regarding Zentreadi history in Ep31 the Zentreadi are supposed to have a "civil war" that broke out among themselves should also have pressured the Masters long ago to have adequate defenses should the Zentreadi rebel again.
Seto wrote:We do see in RTSC the UEEF take potshots at the Invid ships... though with a conspicuous lack of success.
IIRC TSC and EP84-85 are the only times we see this though. They didn't do it for 10th MD (if the equipment is being replaced why not wait) and 21st. Carpenter might be explainable, but we don't know when the Tok-class was relegated to "transport duty" exactly and it doesn't help that he picked a fight with a fleet of ships each of which is 5x his size (in the animation the Masters didn't deploy Bioroids or other "smaller" vessels, this was a straight up multi-City Ships vs 1 Tok and her fighters and later Earth reinforcements).
Seto wrote:Yes, I wanted to outline it as weapons that are capable of consistently dealing Mega Damage rather than ones that might cross that threshold in a freak accident or lucky shot.
Feak accident/Lucky strikes me as the purpose of the Critical Strike Roll (typically x2 damage, though some specific attacks get more). Trying to rationalize how the damage works w/o critical strike rolls IMHO amounts to how square the shot was to the target (the lower the damage roll the more of a glancing nature it is). While rolling max damage for a die roll could be considered lucky, in general the chance of rolling max on a d6 (16.7%) or d4 (25%) is more likely than on a D20 (5%), though the use of enough multiple d6 or d4s could make it more of a lucky result than a D20 if enough need to be rolled. It also avoids the issue of explaining surplus energy in energy storage mediums (ex. if you have 1 shot left in H-90 pistol, is that 6MD stored in the clip or 3.5MD?).