Difference between revisions of "Talk:Lightning"

From UFOpaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
(What a shame)
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]
 
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]
 +
 +
== What a shame ==
 +
 +
What a shame the Lightning doesn't have a viable niche in the game, if even for just a phase in the mid-game.  It's less fuel-efficient and less heavily armed than the Firestorm, and of course it pales in comparison to the Avenger.  I suppose it's possible to use it for intercepting and recovering Scouts... but a Firestorm+Skyranger would work better.
 +
 +
Question: my recollection is that early in the game I can find Elerium-115 on crashed UFO's, but later in the game the crashed UFO's are too heavily damaged.  Is this just something hard-coded into the gameplay, or is it related to the level of overkill the later weapons do?
 +
 +
Perhaps the Lightning could serve some function as a specialist in anti-Scout missions... give it a single Plasma Beam and it could shoot them down without taking damage and without blasting their power sources, while also carrying an assault team that would be sufficient for dealing with the small number of aliens on those UFO's.
 +
 +
[[User:Eric|Eric]] 22:42, 6 January 2007 (PST)

Revision as of 06:42, 7 January 2007

I find the Lightning somewhat useful at hunting down medium UFO's, since you do the downing and scavenging in a single trip, effectively saving a hangar. Of course, this is not exclusive - you still need at least a transport and an interceptor - but I find having a Lightning craft useful for such missions, especially since transferring soldiers and equipment from one craft to another costs nothing.

--Trotsky 04:29, 26 June 2006 (PDT)


If I built a Lightning, I'd do away with the SkyRanger/Interceptor (so long as I was sure I could access the Elerium required). However, because the Avenger can do everything the Lightning can (and much more), I don't see the point in wasting time and money building the lesser craft.

- Bomb Bloke


I think the Lightning is not so much a Skyranger/Interceptor replacement, but an experience. In fact, I'd actually recommend that the Lightning be used to suppliment your Skyranger or Interceptor than to replace them. (I always recommend hanging onto your older aircraft anyway... but that's not in discussion)

The Lightning's main selling point has to be when it's used in the battlescape, with its multiple exits (although, this is unique only because of a collision detection error). You don't get HWPs, but fill this with veteran soldiers and you're all set.

It's a lousy interceptor due to its shorter range, but it can still move very fast, making it good for emergency situations where you have to intercept a UFO close to home. But if you want a troop carrier, go for the Skyranger and Avenger. If you want an interceptor, go for the interceptor or Avenger.

The lightning, to me at least, is much more interesting than the Firestorm. But some players find that useful as well, and I won't begrudge them that.

- NKF

What a shame

What a shame the Lightning doesn't have a viable niche in the game, if even for just a phase in the mid-game. It's less fuel-efficient and less heavily armed than the Firestorm, and of course it pales in comparison to the Avenger. I suppose it's possible to use it for intercepting and recovering Scouts... but a Firestorm+Skyranger would work better.

Question: my recollection is that early in the game I can find Elerium-115 on crashed UFO's, but later in the game the crashed UFO's are too heavily damaged. Is this just something hard-coded into the gameplay, or is it related to the level of overkill the later weapons do?

Perhaps the Lightning could serve some function as a specialist in anti-Scout missions... give it a single Plasma Beam and it could shoot them down without taking damage and without blasting their power sources, while also carrying an assault team that would be sufficient for dealing with the small number of aliens on those UFO's.

Eric 22:42, 6 January 2007 (PST)