I think the Hammerhead costs more than the Manta. Can we check this? Magic9mushroom 04:35, 19 August 2009 (EDT)
- I checked it in-game before I amended the post. I tried to build a Hammerhead and a Manta, and it is the Manta that costs more. But someone else should double check in case I got it wrong. Spike 11:26, 19 August 2009 (EDT)
- I checked. Indeed you are correct. How odd. Magic9mushroom 03:33, 20 August 2009 (EDT)
- Looks odd, but I guess in one way of thinking, the Manta is the superior interception sub while the Hammerhead(awesome lil ship, by the way) only provides a lesser transportation role, being a mini Leviathan. Its interception role is greatly weakened by having the shortest operational time and range of all the subs despite the good acceleration. My opinion says it should be the more expensive because it's a specialty craft, but perhaps the higher Manta price was to make the player spend more money on ships that they might use more. -NKF 04:00, 20 August 2009 (EDT)
OTOH, the Hammerhead does better against the Dreadnaught (more than twice as much HP), and unlike the Lightning in UFO, is actually useful because of the Lobbie Commander required to get the Leviathan. The Manta's improved over the Firestorm, but the Hammerhead's far more improved over the Lightning. And the Lightning costs more than the Firestorm in UFO.
Oh, and by the way, the Hammerhead has a bigger range than the Manta. Twice the fuel capacity and not much less speed.
Ah well, not like 20 Aqua Plastics and a bit of money matter anyway at that stage of the game. Magic9mushroom 05:07, 20 August 2009 (EDT)
The Hammerhead is faster to build and has a higher chance of success when taking on a dreadnaught singlehandedly than a manta - making it a great throw-away interceptor against those pesky very large subs in the later stages of the game. One might even consider using it as standard interceptor instead of the manta. 12 aquanauts are also usually enough to deal with any recovery mission.--Tauon 18:27, 22 December 2010 (EST)
Why no air intercept?
Due to various reasons, X-COM flying-subs are forbidden from engaging enemy ships in air-to-air combat while flying over dry land.
What are the 'various' reasons, do tell? Because it uses the same code base as EU, with air combat being replaced by water combat? Because flying subs only carry underwater weapons? (Why?) Are there any reasons given in-game or in canonical materials that give an explanation or rationalisation for what is, basically, pretty weird? Spike 16:27, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- Well, I mean, reason #1 is that half of the sub weapons definitively don't work out of water (torpedoes, which generally can't fly) and we don't have any evidence either way about the other ones (they could well rely on water cooling, for instance). Reason #2 is that the target-acquisition systems of the submarines appear to be sonar-based, and that won't work (or rather, will work very differently and not as well) in air. Between these, the X-Com subs would seem to be at a distinct disadvantage.
- Really, the weird bit isn't that the subs can't fight in the air - it's that they can fly in the first place. Magic9mushroom (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2019 (CEST)
Sub design concepts
Just a bit of trivia on the design of the advanced subs, and most probably the alien subs as well. Found this out myself recently. Try goggling Irwin Allen's "Voyage To The Bottom of the Sea" for the FS-1 Flying Sub. I'm very convinced that the Hammerhead and the alien sub (especially the colours) in the intro were influenced by this ship. -NKF 01:33, 27 April 2012 (EDT)