Crusader Hecules Starlifter

[Caldon]

My wallet hid from this thing, but it needn't fear. Not buying this thing, you have a Starfarer Gemini for less than the C2. 

[AstroJak]

My wallet hid from this thing, but it needn't fear. Not buying this thing, you have a Starfarer Gemini for less than the C2. 

But the gemini is a smaller cousin to the C2...NO?
C2 can hold to tonks, the gemini 2 rovers at best!

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

[Gremlich]

As a backer interested in Exploration, I don't have a need for the Hercules. That "wessel" is for those who follow.

[Fleischwolf]

I feel like this guy sums up my feeling about this ship and sale best:

 

 

[Devil Khan]

Yeah he basically summed it up in those three points.

Seriously, we had the same thing (excluding the free vehicle) last one, 100 series.

[VoA]

Most likely than not I am probably not going to get a Hercules..... and much prefer the Hammerhead and Polaris, etc............ but......... this (see link below) - just gave the Hercules a big boost (since it has VTOLs) over other ships that are not designed specifically for atmosphere and planet landings (vs ships that are mainly designed for space).

VTOL's vs Maneuvering Thrusters while landing / hovering

[Fleischwolf]

20 minutes ago, VoA said:

Most likely than not I am probably not going to get a Hercules..... and much prefer the Hammerhead and Polaris, etc............ but......... this (see link below) - just gave the Hercules a big boost (since it has VTOLs) over other ships that are not designed specifically for atmosphere and planet landings (vs ships that are mainly designed for space).

VTOL's vs Maneuvering Thrusters while landing / hovering

I was just thinking about the idea of VTOL's today and the difference between the Hammerhead and A2 Hercules, and I noticed some oddities.

I imagine that CIG may make the A2 more of an "Assault" style of gunship, meant to do well in atmosphere and in-atmosphere hovering, whereas the Hammerhead is more of a space-oriented capital support gunship. Even so, they mentioned in the RtV that the A2 has inherent weaknesses with turret placement by design. I also don't see gravity-dropped "MOABs" being used much in space combat. This will make the A2 extremely vulnerable to attack in space, almost to a point of uselessness without extensive escort / support. If the A2 needs so much escort, why even have it over the M2? Just let smaller ships do the ground pounding. The A2 also continues to power-creep the hell out of the Retaliator, making the A2 all but replace it as a premier ground-attack bomber. 

On another note, I just find it odd that the Hammerhead has the better cockpit for ground attack over the A2 (facing the ground). In fact, by the concept art alone, the A2 might have some terrible visibility of the ground. That is just so odd for a ship that specializes in landing or ground attack. It just seems like a bad design choice that exists solely because they wanted the ship to "look cool" with a B2 inspired cockpit. . 

For me, the Hercules is in the same category as the Prowler. It is a niche, highly-specialized, overpriced landing craft, except this one specializes in vehicles rather than infantry. Also, the crew requirement for one of these things is rather large if you start to think about vehicle crews, or dropping loaded APCs with squads of infantry. This is definitely a ship meant to support large-scale organization operations. In that respect, it might not be a ship that is taken out very often, and even when it is, how likely will the need be to land ground vehicles under fire?

I see the C2 being the most used, as I see tanks being moved from one planet to another when things are "quiet" and organizations are just moving assets around to fortify garrisons or supporting new homesteads / bases. I imagine before this game is released, we may see a half-dozen more specialized ground vehicles to support repair, refuel, or base building. Right now we only have the Cyclone, Ursa, and Nova (and Greycat lol...).

If in the future we have far more ground vehicles, then the C2 might be worth having, but until then, this is a ship best earned in game by a group of players that are interested in this unique  and specialized gameplay. 

 

[Reavern]

10 hours ago, AstroJak said:

From my perspective buy or dont buy thats your option ajd CIG will live or die based on their merrits.
As for the ship at had id pay 360 for the C2 and even 480 for the M2 if its equipped with the advertized armour, weapons and milspec components. But the A2 no no no....way too expensive, ill stay with my hammerhead which has far more going for it IMO.
AJ

8

I don't understand why anyone would buy the C2 as a cargo hauler. The C2 carries 624 SCU and costs $360 or $300 war-bond. Ok, the C2 carries more than a Caterpillar (576 SCU) but the Cat only cost $225, originally (I'm glad I bought it ), and now it's up to $295. Anyone who missed out on the $225 Caterpillar has to drop $300 on the C2 war-bond to make it worthwhile. At $360, the extra 48 SCU of cargo isn't worth an extra $60. I'll keep my Cat, thanks. We also know the C2 will increase in price later, like when it's flyable. It'll probably be over $400 with Store Credit and the war-bond price will probably increase too.

If you're only interested in hauling cargo, a Hull C or D are much better buys.

The only unique thing the C2 does is carry 2 Nova Tanks and deploy them to a planet's surface. I don't think a Starfarer can deploy a Nova because the tank is too tall to fit through its cargo bay door. The Cat can't carry a Tonk either. I think the only other ship that could carry a Nova Tank is the Idris Frigate using its aft boarding ramp.

That's the only reason to own a C2: to transport and deploy Nova Tanks. But it's probably not a good idea to deploy Nova Tanks at a hot LZ -- that's what the M2 is for. The C2 is basically for transporting tanks around during peace-time. It's not a cost-effective cargo hauler. The Hercules looks awesome, but you don't buy a big rig for its style.

The M2 is the only Hercules model that makes sense to buy IMO because it fulfills a distinct role: rapidly deploying tanks into combat zones. The M2 can do that because it has extra armour and shields, and ventral gun turrets to lay down cover-fire. I think the M2 is over-priced at $480/$400 wb, but much like the Esperia Prowler, it fulfills a specialty role that no other ship can do, and CIG expects us to pay extra for that privilege.

Of course, I agree that the A2 is indefensibly OVER-PRICED. I already own a Hammerhead w/ LTI that I purchased with store credit. I'm not going to melt it and pay $50 more for an A2 without LTI, which can carry one tank and most of its guns can only fire down. Sure, the A2 can blast the bejeezus out of planet-side bases and outposts with its MOABs and carpet bombs, but that's not worth $700! 

Maybe $500. The A2 is apparently the only bomber that can drop MOABs, so it's a specialty role ship. But it's not worth the price of 3 Retaliator heavy bombers. 2 Tali's, maybe, but not 3.

I genuinely hope that CIG listens to the outrage over the A2 Hercules' $700 price and reduces it by at least $100 by this Friday. I know that there's virtually no chance of CIG doing that because I don't recall them ever caving to community pressure and reducing a ship's price before. They've modified ships -- like adding a bunch of extra guns to the over-priced $250 Redeemer -- but they've never reduced prices. The only scenario that I'd even entertain buying an A2 is if it were $200 cheaper. But that would mean reducing the prices of the M2 and possibly the C2. I just don't see CIG caving to pressure and doing the right thing. It's disappointing, and I think I might be done giving CIG any more of my money. I have other priorities now. I'll just play with the store credit I have and use it to buy new concept ships, without LTI. 

[Fleischwolf]

@Reavern Woah, we basically were thinking the same thing about the Starlifter. 

I don't even see anything but the C2 being all that useful, as all of the variants will need some kind of escort. I mean an eclipse or two will be a serious problem, even for the A2 or M2. Their guns don't seem able to create an exclusion-zone like the Hammerhead's. If they are going to make a base-killing ship like the A2, there sure as hell is going to be a decent counter to knock them down, or else base building will get rather shitty from a game-balance perspective. Also, this is purely speculative, but I imagine is is better to try to take a base and its assets intact from the ground rather than blasting them with MOABs. If Planetside 2 has taught me anything about combined arms gameplay, its that getting nuked from orbit without having any agency in a fight feels like a shitty experience. 

I wonder how the M2 is compared to the Starfarer Gemini in terms of durability. I think the Star-G dies within 2-3 S9 torpedoes. 

The biggest thing that I think bothers people with this sale is not the actual price of the ship; we have seen expensive ships before. It is that fact that with the new Warbond system, our "old money" has depreciated in value relative to "new money". I understand CIG needs new money, but it is interesting to see the strategies they come up with in order to deal with over-saturation of their current backers. Like I know that I have backed as much as I am willing to, and just re-arrange my fleet as new ships become available without spending more money. It honestly makes me worried if they will be able to make enough money over the next 2-3 years to see this game though to beta. 

[Reavern]

19 hours ago, Fleischwolf said:

@Reavern Woah, we basically were thinking the same thing about the Starlifter. 

I don't even see anything but the C2 being all that useful, as all of the variants will need some kind of escort. I mean an eclipse or two will be a serious problem, even for the A2 or M2. Their guns don't seem able to create an exclusion-zone like the Hammerhead's. If they are going to make a base-killing ship like the A2, there sure as hell is going to be a decent counter to knock them down, or else base building will get rather shitty from a game-balance perspective. Also, this is purely speculative, but I imagine is is better to try to take a base and its assets intact from the ground rather than blasting them with MOABs. If Planetside 2 has taught me anything about combined arms gameplay, its that getting nuked from orbit without having any agency in a fight feels like a shitty experience. 

I wonder how the M2 is compared to the Starfarer Gemini in terms of durability. I think the Star-G dies within 2-3 S9 torpedoes. 

The biggest thing that I think bothers people with this sale is not the actual price of the ship; we have seen expensive ships before. It is that fact that with the new Warbond system, our "old money" has depreciated in value relative to "new money". I understand CIG needs new money, but it is interesting to see the strategies they come up with in order to deal with over-saturation of their current backers. Like I know that I have backed as much as I am willing to, and just re-arrange my fleet as new ships become available without spending more money. It honestly makes me worried if they will be able to make enough money over the next 2-3 years to see this game though to beta. 

4

I don't think the M2 or A2 have any credible threats from the surface. I think the Hercules will shrug off all 4 missiles from a Cyclone-AA, if they even hit the ship, because the M2 and A2 will probably have excellent countermeasures. I think the Herc will also tank shots from the Nova's main gun -- assuming it can elevate high enough to hit the Herc in the air.

I agree that the Hercules is more vulnerable from above and an Eclipse can almost certainly take it out with 2 or 3 torpedoes -- the Herc won't even see it coming. However, that isn't a problem that the Hercules should fix. The Herc should have some vulnerabilities for balance. It should require escort fighters for air superiority and gunships to hunt and kill Cyclone-AAs.

CIG needs to produce more AA weapon systems, including handheld, mobile, and fixed emplacements, because there are over 40 flyable ships now and there's currently only ONE vehicle with AA weapons. With the releases of the Pioneer, land grants, the Cyclone, Nova Tank, and Hercules, it seems like CIG is really pushing surface combat now. If that is the direction the Alpha is going for the foreseeable future, CIG needs to create weapons that can counter the overwhelming air and space threats. CIG said that there will be defensive emplacements for outposts, such as AA Batteries, which might protect them against the A2's MOABs. I think outposts will need powerful shield gens to stand a chance. And fighters will be the best defense.

 

I agree about the devaluation of "old money". Ship prices seem to keep going up because of war-bond pricing. I don't believe the war-bond prices are discounts. They're the regular price and CIG charges 10-20% more to use Store Credit. That inflates ship prices and devalues older ships. If backers choose to melt an old ship, they will probably need to spend extra cash to cover the difference. The price fixing scheme is intended to entice war-bond purchases to generate new money.

I've said this many times now: CIG needs to focus on attracting new backers to Star Citizen, instead of milking existing backers for more money. The Origin 100 series was an ideal ship to get new backers on board. It did seem to cause a surge in recruits. CIG needs more Starter Ships like the 100i. I think that every Ship Manufacturer should have a Starter Ship. That means Aegis, Anvil, and Drake, possibly Crusader, Esperia, and Kruger, and perhaps even Aopoa and Banu.

I also think that for all new Starters, CIG should not put them on Concept Sale. They should withhold them until they're flyable. If a new backer buys a new Starter Package to get into the Star Citizen Alpha, they should be able to fly it immediately -- not a loaner substitute ship. That's confusing and disappointing to newbies who don't understand that it takes months to develop a new ship. This would only be the case for new Starters. The more expensive ships can continue have Concept Sales and take a year or more to be ready to fly. Perhaps as a compromise CIG can release concept art for new Starter, but NOT put them on sale. Have a Concept Reveal event and do the Q&A, but wait until they're flyable to put them on sale. Also, prioritize the Starters in the ship development pipeline to get them flyable ASAP.

I believe that's the right way to attract new money and backers into Star Citizen. Whereas premium ships, like the Hercules, scare away new backers because it makes Star Citizen appear to be P2W.

[Danakar Endeel]

On 8-5-2018 at 7:19 AM, Reavern said:

I don't think the M2 or A2 have any credible threats from the surface. I think the Hercules will shrug off all 4 missiles from a Cyclone-AA, if they even hit the ship, because the M2 and A2 will probably have excellent countermeasures. I think the Herc will also tank shots from the Nova's main gun -- assuming it can elevate high enough to hit the Herc in the air.

I agree that the Hercules is more vulnerable from above and an Eclipse can almost certainly take it out with 2 or 3 torpedoes -- the Herc won't even see it coming. However, that isn't a problem that the Hercules should fix. The Herc should have some vulnerabilities for balance. It should require escort fighters for air superiority and gunships to hunt and kill Cyclone-AAs.

CIG needs to produce more AA weapon systems, including handheld, mobile, and fixed emplacements, because there are over 40 flyable ships now and there's currently only ONE vehicle with AA weapons. With the releases of the Pioneer, land grants, the Cyclone, Nova Tank, and Hercules, it seems like CIG is really pushing surface combat now. If that is the direction the Alpha is going for the foreseeable future, CIG needs to create weapons that can counter the overwhelming air and space threats. CIG said that there will be defensive emplacements for outposts, such as AA Batteries, which might protect them against the A2's MOABs. I think outposts will need powerful shield gens to stand a chance. And fighters will be the best defense.

The SQ42 demo last year showed the Gladius sneaking through canyons to avoid detection from defense turrets protecting the base. 

 

[Devil Khan]

No it's not forcing P2W, it's merely free, but "we charge through the nose" to fly ships that are actually ok". Back in the day when it was kickstarter running, I thought some of the prices were steep, namely, the F7C-M $165 then of course it bumped up further. I still think the prices for weapons are way to high. 18,000 "made up amount", but 1 dollar equals 1000 atm. Atm the prices can be cheap, because you don't have to buy ships, but the basic ships are crappy trading in the "game".  However, he still has the right as the game doesn't even going to the official release stage.  

I don't like the business side of CIG TBH. Also some of the concept artists, do they not know what a plane looks like? It's fine for a movie, but we are not watching a movie, Star Citizen.  

[Devil Khan]

BoredGamer is talking thru his ass tbh.

[Reavern]

10 hours ago, Danakar Endeel said:

The SQ42 demo last year showed the Gladius sneaking through canyons to avoid detection from defense turrets protecting the base. 

 

 

Yes, I hope CIG releases defensive weapon emplacements like that. But you never know -- they could've just made it for that trailer. Based on the handrail around the AA turret, which is presumably the standard height of 36 inches (3 feet), I'd guestimate that gun turret is approx. 8 feet tall (not counting the platform it's mounted on), and its guns are approx. 6 feet long. Those are probably Size 4 or 5.

That AA turret will certainly be a deadly threat to a Gladius; one or two direct hits will probably shred a light fighter. However, I think the Hercules, especially the M2 and A2, will be able to tank multiple shots from that AA gun. The Herc wouldn't want to loiter around that AA turret, but if it had to deploy soldiers and tanks in range of one or two of them, it could handle it. I think the Herc's ventral gun turrets would destroy the AA turret before it could take it down.

I know I have nothing to base that on, but presumably the M2 and A2 are designed to deal with AA turrets like that, so it wouldn't make sense if they'd be blown out of the sky in 2 seconds.

I think an outpost would need at least 4 of those AA turrets for minimal level defense. If 4 AA turrets coordinated their fire on a Hercules, they'd take it down very quickly. I'd go for at least 8 for my base, as well as SAMs for long-range anti-air.

However, if multiple A2 Hercules bombers attacked an outpost with their MOABs, I don't think any number of AA turrets or shields gens would be enough. Fighters and/or gunships would need to intercept the bombers before they could drop their bombs.

[AstroJak]

Yes, I hope CIG releases defensive weapon emplacements like that. But you never know -- they could've just made it for that trailer. Based on the handrail around the AA turret, which is presumably the standard height of 36 inches (3 feet), I'd guestimate that gun turret is approx. 8 feet tall (not counting the platform it's mounted on), and its guns are approx. 6 feet long. Those are probably Size 4 or 5.
That AA turret will certainly be a deadly threat to a Gladius; one or two direct hits will probably shred a light fighter. However, I think the Hercules, especially the M2 and A2, will be able to tank multiple shots from that AA gun. The Herc wouldn't want to loiter around that AA turret, but if it had to deploy soldiers and tanks in range of one or two of them, it could handle it. I think the Herc's ventral gun turrets would destroy the AA turret before it could take it down.
I know I have nothing to base that on, but presumably the M2 and A2 are designed to deal with AA turrets like that, so it wouldn't make sense if they'd be blown out of the sky in 2 seconds.
I think an outpost would need at least 4 of those AA turrets for minimal level defense. If 4 AA turrets coordinated their fire on a Hercules, they'd take it down very quickly. I'd go for at least 8 for my base, as well as SAMs for long-range anti-air.
However, if multiple A2 Hercules bombers attacked an outpost with their MOABs, I don't think any number of AA turrets or shields gens would be enough. Fighters and/or gunships would need to intercept the bombers before they could drop their bombs.

Im pretty sure that when they talked about base building and habs they mentioned defense systems would be a future add on but not build by the pioneer. So yes there will be defense systems are a thing but when?

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

[Fleischwolf]

6 hours ago, Reavern said:

However, if multiple A2 Hercules bombers attacked an outpost with their MOABs, I don't think any number of AA turrets or shields gens would be enough. Fighters and/or gunships would need to intercept the bombers before they could drop their bombs.

The more I think about it, the more I feel the need to hold on to my Vanguard Harbinger. 

Those mid-size torpedoes and the rocket pods will be perfect against a ship like the M2/A2. 

[Devil Khan]

I didn't notice the elevator before. 

Anyway, isn't the "MOAB" facing backwards in that pic? If the rear access ramp isn't supposed to be there? Personally, I think the rear access should be still there and the front not "usable" like this pic.

 

 

[Devil Khan]

Quick question, did anyone see a flaw for the MOAB/morning star? something along the lines of crashing in to each other upon (dual) launch.

[Reavern]

I agree with Noobifier's conclusion in the Ship Fight: C2 Herc vs. Drake Catt. Caterpillar is definitely the more versatile of the two and the extra 48 SCU of cargo isn't worth the extra $65 for a CCU. I bought my Caterpillar when it was first available and nabbed it for $225, so that's a difference of $135. No thanks. (I could almost buy a Freelancer MAX for that price difference.)

The only reason I could justify owning a C2 is to carry and deploy Tonks, but only to safe LZs. The C2 is a supply ship, not an assault ship.

I suppose if you only care about cargo hauling and want a cool looking ship, you might find the C2 more appealing than a Caterpillar. To each their own.

I'm surprised that Youngblood concluded that the C2 Hercules was the best value of the Hercules line. I suppose, technically, it is because it's the cheapest and carries the most cargo. But there's a stronger case for the Caterpillar. The M2 is over-priced, but if I was going to buy a Hercules, I'd buy the M2 because it's designed to deploy 2 Tonks to a hot LZ. No other ship can do that. If the M2 was $50 cheaper, I think most would agree it's the better value.

Not even going to talk about the A2.

[Fleischwolf]

I think I have come to the conclusion that I am more excited for the gameplay the the Starlifter implies, rather than the prospect of owning and piloting one. This is one I will working towards in game or help crewing an org mate's. 

Like, if IMP ever was in a ground-war or something, I know I would rather be in one of the vehicles rather than just dropping them off and leaving. 

EDIT: I think the C2 might be the best choice though. 

[VoA]

On 5/11/2018 at 4:51 PM, Reavern said:

I agree with Noobifier's conclusion in the Ship Fight: C2 Herc vs. Drake Catt. Caterpillar is definitely the more versatile of the two and the extra 48 SCU of cargo isn't worth the extra $65 for a CCU. I bought my Caterpillar when it was first available and nabbed it for $225, so that's a difference of $135. No thanks. (I could almost buy a Freelancer MAX for that price difference.)

The only reason I could justify owning a C2 is to carry and deploy Tonks, but only to safe LZs. The C2 is a supply ship, not an assault ship.

I suppose if you only care about cargo hauling and want a cool looking ship, you might find the C2 more appealing than a Caterpillar. To each their own.

I'm surprised that Youngblood concluded that the C2 Hercules was the best value of the Hercules line. I suppose, technically, it is because it's the cheapest and carries the most cargo. But there's a stronger case for the Caterpillar. The M2 is over-priced, but if I was going to buy a Hercules, I'd buy the M2 because it's designed to deploy 2 Tonks to a hot LZ. No other ship can do that. If the M2 was $50 cheaper, I think most would agree it's the better value.

Not even going to talk about the A2.

I am with you on this but not 100%.   I also picked up a Caterpillar early on and will not CCU it to get the C2.... nor will I CCU my Hammerhead to get the A2....... however..... I am not as down on the versatility / value of the C2, M2 and A2 like most.   I think the Hercules will dominate planetary "hostile" game-play.   Why "hostile"..... we'll simply because other ships that can land will still do the job just fine for non-hostile planetary exploration / cargo / etc....  Like the Aquila, Carrack, Caterpillar and even Banu MM, etc...

The big thing that people that want to be negative on the Hercules are missing is their maneuverability and focus fire in atmosphere and under-belly coverage - they will basically be the Penultimate ships for "Hostile" planetary Game-play at the large scale (with the Redeemer, Hoplite, Prowler, Retaliator (with Dropship module), etc... doing just fine for smaller scale "hostile" drop-ship needs)

Big Advatages of the Hercules besides is Under-Belly Focus and Atmosphere Maneuverability:

• C2 = Carrying 2 Nova Tanks will be a big deal as an option will be a big deal even for a Civlian ship (of which other cargo ships won't have the option to carry the Nova Tanks)
• M2 = Is like the Gemini vs Starfarer..... just more armor and weapons and will perform that much better than the C2 if the primary function is needed in Hostile Zones
• A2 = Yes it is expensive but it will empower massive devastation planet-side - much more than a Hammerhead or even Polaris.   I am betting the MOABs will be able to flatten a mountain where Torpedoes won't have this massive explosive power planet-side.   Carpet bombing massive areas with its optional cluster bombs will also be valuable attacking planet-side targets in large areas.

------------------------

So where I am also agreeing with most and not getting one of these ships (and not CCUing any ships to get one)......... these will be ships that will find extreme Penultimate use in Hostile Planet-side Scenarios...... and as I mentioned before....... we are likely to see more Planet Side Content with Procedural Planets (not to mention with the Pioneer setting up outposts and land-rights)......... much earlier than we will see Inter-Stellar game play (that will likely come later in SC development).

[Reavern]

@VoA I agree that the Hercules line opens up exciting new gameplay opportunities, but I'm passing on the sale.

I'm excited about participating in massive planetary assaults, but I have no intention of flying an M2 or even a C2 to deploy Tonks to the battlefield. I'd rather fly my Super Hornet or Sabre in an air superiority role to protect the dropships, or pounding the enemy base with bombs/torpedoes in my Retaliator or Eclipse, or get my boots dirty in a Tonk or Cyclone.

If I don't want to fly a Hercules, it doesn't make sense for me to purchase one. I might buy one in-game and make it available to IMP members to fly. I think that might be a stumbling block with the Hercules. It's a ship that is absolutely necessary... but how many players will choose to fly it instead of getting in on the action?

[Buckaroo]

I have to admit even though I don't appreciate what CIG did this time for this sale--specifically the huge gap in price between the Standard vs Warbond and the included Tonk/Cyclone--I did decide to buy a CCU to the Hercules C2 from my Aquila LTI using some store credit from an Aurora I melted and a little bit of new cash.  The M2 and especially the A2 were just completely out of my price range.

I bought the Aquila mostly as a transport ship to begin with, not to explore.  I preferred its front-end look over the regular Andromeda, and it came with a snub fighter and the rover.  The C2 is the best looking transport ship that I've seen so far released.  However, I'm waiting to see all the Q&A to see if my questions are answered about living/bed situation.  I'm really hoping for more than just beds in there and more of what the Constellation Andromeda/Aquila came with at the very least.  What would be awesome would be some captain quarters, but I know that's just not likely...

(I'm also hoping that the loaner ship becomes the 600i when 3.2 drops.  Currently it's the Starfarer Gemini.)

If I really don't like it after the Q&A, I may just melt the CCU and buy a smaller transport ship like the Avenger Titan.

[VoA]

4 hours ago, Reavern said:

@VoA I agree that the Hercules line opens up exciting new gameplay opportunities, but I'm passing on the sale.

I'm excited about participating in massive planetary assaults, but I have no intention of flying an M2 or even a C2 to deploy Tonks to the battlefield. I'd rather fly my Super Hornet or Sabre in an air superiority role to protect the dropships, or pounding the enemy base with bombs/torpedoes in my Retaliator or Eclipse, or get my boots dirty in a Tonk or Cyclone.

Like you I am passing on the sale - really for the same reasons you cite - however - I just want to call attention to others that our strategy to use our Hornets, Tali's (of which I also have),  etc.... to "participate" won't likely be that effective on ground based assaults as you think.   The Heavy space based Bombers will likely be able to level a building..... with the Polaris leveling an Outpost....... whereas.... the A2 will likely be able to level a mountain (and penetrate into underground bases) with the MOABs or create wide swaths of destruction with the Cluster Bomb option... (not just taking out one outpost - but multiple outposts that maybe in a village all at once).    Having all guns on the bottom of the ship will be huge as well for ground based assaults vs something like a Tali where most of the turrets are on top and will be useless vs ground units.   Not to mention the Hercules ships are made for atmosphere flight and will hover and maneuver much more efficiently compared to other ships its size or even many smaller ships.

 

4 hours ago, Reavern said:

If I don't want to fly a Hercules, it doesn't make sense for me to purchase one. I might buy one in-game and make it available to IMP members to fly. I think that might be a stumbling block with the Hercules. It's a ship that is absolutely necessary... but how many players will choose to fly it instead of getting in on the action?

I think this is a dangerous general statement that needs to be reevaluated..... "If I don't want to fly a Hercules"........ I said this about many ships I still have in my Hangar (that I virtually promised myself that these would be CCU'd / melted / or whatever)..... but I still have them for various reasons I didn't think of before.

Don't you think that CIG will have a lot more ground based game-play / content ..... available.... far earlier in SC development than inter-stellar game-play / content.....?

Also - don't you think that spaced based bombers and fighters will be far less effective in planetary assaults than what most people currently think?    I see CIG coming out with planetary fighters now.... (that will be far superior than Hornets, Sabers, etc....) when fighting in atmosphere and vs ground targets.

===============

Just something to think about is all. 

3 hours ago, Buckaroo said:

I bought the Aquila mostly as a transport ship to begin with, not to explore.  I preferred its front-end look over the regular Andromeda, and it came with a snub fighter and the rover.  The C2 is the best looking transport ship that I've seen so far released. 

Based on this @Buckaroo I think you made the right choice.   It maybe that the people that are negative on the Hercules will cause it to be "under-sold"........ giving you even greater profit / use potential with your C2 than you realize.

[VoA]

Arghh.... if I am not careful.... I am going to end up talking myself into getting a Hercules  (this has happened many times before with other ships - lol)

Good thread from RSI - Spectrum...

Hercules A2/C2, More About What It Can Carry