Updates, Upgrades, and Reposts

Despite the success of the EAF-20 and EAB-17, the Marine Corps decided that they could be made more effective. Weapons systems and electronics, as well as propulsion and FTL-drive technologies were all progressed to produce the most effective fighter-interceptor and bomber-ground attack craft, and in fact, the Navy adopted the EAB-17B as its standard bomber due to the improvements in the design's inertial compensator and added artificial gravity that allowed for null-gravity combat. As such, the payload has been made much more varied to fit the even wider scope of roles the EAB-17B now fills. While the EAF-20B also has these improvements, the Navy did not adopt it as it did its bomber counterpart.

EAB-17B "Badger" and EAF-20B "Coyote":

I'll let you just imagine the wreckage these can wreak. A note on the new monikers: badgers and coyotes will hunt together at times, with the badger digging up prey and the coyote chasing it down.
Also. I kinda did these at the start of the calendar year, but posted them on my own website...

Also modified is the Rapid Deployment Craft. Special Forces noted that the operatives in the field complained about two things: a lack of cargo space, and the superfluous door guns. So, designers took this to heart, redesigning the craft almost entirely. Listening to the troops, troop capacity was almost tripled, though that is without any cargo or extra equipment aboard; however, they also listened to pilots, and altered the chin cannon to have a near-full-hemispherical field of fire, making up for the lack of door guns greatly (as if another half-dozen or so armed commandos didn't ).

Rapid Deployment Craft:

Yes I can count: there's 14 troops and 12 rifles. The extra two are...crew chiefs. Yeah, that works, right?

So, with those out of the way, let's see...
I believe it was Talmid or Dino who said the Badger and Coyote might be OP because of the number of warheads? How about now? I'd say they're a dream for those who are tactically-inclined.
Jred was the one who mentioned mounting the swivel cannon, I believe, and credit to Arik for helping me out with the actual design back when I did this one.

And, yes, I'm still working on that tank. This is just me remembering to post these.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was Dino who mentioned the OP-ness- I probably will too, depending on the strength of said warheads.

Potential balance issues aside, I love the new designs; they're just really cool IMO.

Those are some really nice aerospacecraft. The Badger is a really cool bomber, though the Coyote looks a little bit plain.  The amount of munitions they can both carry is astounding, however!  Yes, I can imagine them wreaking a lot of damage.   

We should organize a war game between Star Force and the Imperium's respective aerospace forces sometime.

Those fighters are still nothing compared to any videogame, which will give you atelast tripple that number of missiles. I like the EB-17, but I think you should remove the two innermost missiles, it removes it's streamline look, all the other missiles look pretty darn sweet, but those two kinda ruin it. And I LOVE that turret design on the rapid deployment craft, I never would have thought of doing it like that! Very nice!

Woah. These are seriously nice strikecraft. The "Coyote" has a very prominent "star fighter" look to it, while the Badger reminds me a of an A-10 Warthog. Overall, I can't complain about those two, but I would suggest removing the two missiles near the nose of the Badger. They look a little out of place.

The RDC, however, is a slightly different story. It looks much, much better than the original, but there are a few more improvements that could be made:

1. Thicknesses. The roof, wings, and bottom of the vehicle look much too thin, especially the wings. This craft is a dropship, but without the proper armor, small arms will rip right though it and kill everyone inside, which is something you don't want happening. Bolt some armor on there.

2. Boxiness. I'm not sure how everyone else feels about this, but I find the section behind the cockpit and before the crew bay to be a little too boxy, something that doesn't fit the rest of the design. I'm not sure how to fix this, or if anyone else actually thinks that it's an issue. It's just something that I personally would have changed.

Also, the proper term for the guys that stay in the helicopter/dropship is "crew chief(s)", not "load master(s)". THE MORE YOU KNOW.

I do really like all three vehicles overall. I'm just picky and like to give an honest opinion.

Mightyman wrote:Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was Dino who mentioned the OP-ness- I probably will too, depending on the strength of said warheads.

Potential balance issues aside, I love the new designs; they're just really cool IMO.

Well. You won't get to say much after the pilot hits the red button.

Talmid wrote:Those are some really nice aerospacecraft. The Badger is a really cool bomber, though the Coyote looks a little bit plain.  The amount of munitions they can both carry is astounding, however!  Yes, I can imagine them wreaking a lot of damage.   

We should organize a war game between Star Force and the Imperium's respective aerospace forces sometime.

That sounds fun, and I agree that the Coyote looks plain, but that's part of what makes its utility: simple means inexpensive, inexpensive means more can be made, meaning more enemy fighters are destroyed. Joking aside, I've been thinking about making a sort of "older brother" version, but haven't gotten around to it.

Commander Ant wrote:Those fighters are still nothing compared to any videogame, which will give you atelast tripple that number of missiles.  I like the EB-17, but I think you should remove the two innermost missiles, it removes it's streamline look, all the other missiles look pretty darn sweet, but those two kinda ruin it.  And I LOVE that turret design on the rapid deployment craft, I never would have thought of doing it like that! Very nice!

Triple thirty-four warheads?! That's...almost in conceivable. Oh, I should mention that the two grey tubes that sort of blend in with the fighter, between the largest underside warheads and the Gatling guns, are proton torpedo launchers, each with four torpedoes.

And, again, credit should go where credit is due: Arik made the original design. I tweaked it to fit with the design of the already-made guns. Granted I am the one who made it fit with the design. Also, thank you for being the only person so far to comment on the RDC.

Kojan Altis Riktan wrote:Woah. These are seriously nice strikecraft. The "Coyote" has a very prominent "star fighter" look to it, while the Badger reminds me a of an A-10 Warthog. Overall, I can't complain about those two, but I would suggest removing the two missiles near the nose of the Badger. They look a little out of place.

The RDC, however, is a slightly different story. It looks much, much better than the original, but there are a few more improvements that could be made:

1. Thicknesses. The roof, wings, and bottom of the vehicle look much too thin, especially the wings. This craft is a dropship, but without the proper armor, small arms will rip right though it and kill everyone inside, which is something you don't want happening. Bolt some armor on there.

2. Boxiness. I'm not sure how everyone else feels about this, but I find the section behind the cockpit and before the crew bay to be a little too boxy, something that doesn't fit the rest of the design. I'm not sure how to fix this, or if anyone else actually thinks that it's an issue. It's just something that I personally would have changed.

Also, the proper term for the guys that stay in the helicopter/dropship is "crew chief(s)", not "load master(s)". THE MORE YOU KNOW.

I do really like all three vehicles overall. I'm just picky and like to give an honest opinion.

Thank you for the input on the two fighters. I guess I'll go ahead an remove the two foremost warheads on the Badger.

As for the RDC, the thickness problem I can understand. No idea how to fix it though. Same with the boxiness between cockpit and cargo bay. I tried a bunch of different ideas to blend between those sections and came up with nothing that I liked better. I'll keep working on it though.

Loadmasters would be on a large cargo craft like an Globemaster.

Great craft overall! And nice color scheme. However, there are a few changes I think you should make.

1. Though I love the different missile designs on the Badger, some of them look out of place. If fired, it seems like they might hit each other.

2. The top of the Coyote, IMHO, definitely needs some reworking. Add some armor to it, detail, IDK, but the studs showing just don't look right.

3. I love the shape of the RDC, but the troops look seriously exposed. Add blast doors, heavier armor, or some machine/rotary guns to protect them. Overall, great job though.

And I don't see how these are OP, they remind me of modern fighters. But for someone who put 48 individual launchers on their own fighter, I shouldn't be talking.

To those who mentioned the innermost warheads...

Spoiler:

ARE YOU HAPPEH NOW??

PXR wrote:Great craft overall! And nice color scheme. However, there are a few changes I think you should make.

1. Though I love the different missile designs on the Badger, some of them look out of place. If fired, it seems like they might hit each other.

2. The top of the Coyote, IMHO, definitely needs some reworking. Add some armor to it, detail, IDK, but the studs showing just don't look right.

3. I love the shape of the RDC, but the troops look seriously exposed. Add blast doors, heavier armor, or some machine/rotary guns to protect them. Overall, great job though.

And I don't see how these are OP, they remind me of modern fighters. But for someone who put 48 individual launchers on their own fighter, I shouldn't be talking.

1. Well, obviously they aren't all going to be fired at once. Take a look at a fully-loaded Hornet (F/A-18) or Warthog (A-10) and you'll see similar crowding.

2. Until LEGO decides to make all of their plates into versions without studs, I apologize if this seems rude but you can deal with it. There's nothing more I can do to add thickness or detail or whatever to cover up those studs without having to entirely rework the design, and honestly, I don't feel like doing that.
Another thing to note is that almost all of my smaller fighter models (pretty much every one of them except the Badger) has almost all the studs showing, because of how simple the designs are. I've only been working with LDD for about a year and a half, and covering up studs has always been the bane of me existence. That being said, I don't mind them much at all, so the reality is that I'm not likely to cover them up, even in cases like the Coyote's.

3. If you looked at the older model, you'd know that I used to have "door gunners" and decided to remove them. As for blast doors, I tried that, too, and the model both looked horrible, but it also was severely impaired function-wise.

Spoiler:

This is a general statement to everybody: If you have something you think should be changed, I'd appreciate suggestions as to how to do it. These are designs on which I've spent a good amount of time, and therefore I've either A) come up with what you've mentioned and decided not to do or B) still noticed the problem but haven't come up with a way to fix it.

Wow, I like the blast-door version!  Then you jsut need to add a few rockets or something on the wings. I realize it'll have a smaller troop capacity, but it'ld be nice for extrahot insertions/extractions.

You should add the missiles on by....putting the studs in the holes they go into.

@Jace: Yes, but the missiles aren't literally hitting each other.

As for the studs, it's up to you really, but no offense intended, the studs just takes away from the sleek design and it's just ugh IMHO.

Love the design with the blast doors! And I agree with Ant about the rockets.

Commander Ant wrote:Wow, I like the blast-door version!  Then you jsut need to add a few rockets or something on the wings. I realize it'll have a smaller troop capacity, but it'd be nice for extra hot insertions/extractions.

You should add the missiles on by....putting the studs in the holes they go into.

*Shrugs* I guess, but I really just don't like how it turned out. The mechanism is bulky and I can barely fit in the original number of troops, so I just really don't like it, especially after finishing the version in the start of the thread. I might keep trying, but it's just...bleh.

As for rockets/missiles, those I can do no problem, as well as beefing up the wings themselves.

PXR wrote:@Jace: Yes, but the missiles aren't literally hitting each other.

As for the studs, it's up to you really, but no offense intended, the studs just takes away from the sleek design and it's just ugh IMHO.

Love the design with the blast doors! And I agree with Ant about the rockets.

Nor are the ones on the Badger. If you're referring to the outermost warheads, A) they wouldn't all fire at once, and B) they would be propelled from the underside of the wing and then take off after their target. Ergo not "literally hitting each other."

As I said. There is nothing I can do about that without considerable overhaul on the design.

And, again, while you guys might like it, I don't. It's inefficient, it's cramped, and it was a pain in the neck and rear to try and figure out, only to be spited by what is, to me, an inferior product.

Fine, sell it to me and I'll use it.

And you said to tell you how to do it if we had a suggestion! *throws hands up in the air* You never said that excluded missiles! Gee whiz!

@Jace: On the Badger, the missiles that look like GBU-28s that are in the middle of the wing. If the missiles fire, they will inevitably hit each other since they're stacked. If you don't want constructive criticism, just say it. Anyway, if you do, just take one of them out.

Also, glad to see other people using the term "tactically-inclined"!

There we go. That badger looks much better now, while still being able to dish out tones of damage.

Also, I agree with your decision to remove the "door gunners" from the RDC. It made it look a bit awkward and heavy. Good work!

Commander Ant wrote:Fine, sell it to me and I'll use it.

And you said to tell you how to do it if we had a suggestion! *throws hands up in the air* You never said that excluded missiles! Gee whiz!

Wait, seriously? Okay. If you want to try and make it work, be my guest.
I'll...figure out the .lxf file eventually.

PXR wrote:@Jace: On the Badger, the missiles that look like GBU-28s that are in the middle of the wing. If the missiles fire, they will inevitably hit each other since they're stacked. If you don't want constructive criticism, just say it. Anyway, if you do, just take one of them out.

Also, glad to see other people using the term "tactically-inclined"!

Once. Again. They would not all fire at once. Constructive criticism is one thing. Doggedly proposing a point that I've already addressed is another thing, and that is what you are doing, which is what is frustrating me.

Kojan Altis Riktan wrote:There we go. That badger looks much better now, while still being able to dish out tones of damage.

Also, I agree with your decision to remove the "door gunners" from the RDC. It made it look a bit awkward and heavy. Good work!

I suppose it does, though I feel I will regret the loss of half of the bunker-busting, capital-ship-wrecking armament. Then again I can always replace some of the other warheads, what with the modular mounts.

Thank you, Kojan. Though, looking at the RDC again I suppose I could/should do something to provide more protection for the men on board, despite this mainly being a silent SOCOM craft and not a heat-of-battle squad transport. More of an MH-6 Nightstalker Little Bird than a UH-60 Blackhawk.

@Jace: Pointing out something is not constructive criticism. And I did not say they were fired at once. I said each individual missile firing. If you look at every previous comment I made, unless I skipped something, I never mentioned them firing at once. Unless you have a complex firing pattern, which would not be super useful in the middle of a dogfight, they will hit each other. But it's your fighter, and it's up to you, so IDC what you do with it.

PXR wrote:@Jace: Pointing out something is not constructive criticism. And I did not say they were fired at once. I said each individual missile firing. If you look at every previous comment I made, unless I skipped something, I never mentioned them firing at once. Unless you have a complex firing pattern, which would not be super useful in the middle of a dogfight, they will hit each other. But it's your fighter, and it's up to you, so IDC what you do with it.

Well clearly you do since you've made the same point three or four times. And again, I still fail to see how they would hit each other, as the only warheads that are even touching are the outermost warheads, and that's due to LEGO's lack of a smaller profile brick. You're talking about the middle ones, the sets of three on the T-joint, which aren't touching, and wouldn't hit each other because they wouldn't be firing at once, and even if they were, they wouldn't!

You're tirelessly talking about something that either does not exist, or you have yet to actually show me what you're talking about in sufficient detail to help me understand, and honestly I'm tired of it.