They do, it's called a Shiva.

Edit: This is towards Heaven's MAC comment.

"The Longsword's main weapons are 110mm rotary cannons, as well as 120mm ventral guns, for dogfighting in space. This versatile fighter can be armed with an assortment of secondary weapons including ASGM-10 Missiles, bombs, Moray Space Mines, Scorpion missiles, and even a single Shiva Nuclear Warhead."

quote from halopedia long sword page

Heaven, it ALSO says they have anti-fighter missiles especially designed to take out Seraphs. It's just it's wording. I can easily say "An F-16 has a single .50 caliber machine gun used for dogfighter" that doesn't mean it's the pilots weapon of choice. I'm not saying the 110mm cannons on the Longsword would NEVER be used, I'm saying they'd never be used, FIRST. The pilot would expend all his missiles and THEN use his backup gun, the machine gun. But since I don't think you can code in such a switch, they should fire missiles off the bat.

well im just gonna say thank god colt isnt a fighter pilot thats is i wouldd put the greater good of earth before my personal well being also like i said before look at sins what des the fighter shoot OMG look its a machine gun and the do alot of damage not to mention in sins all the fighters get really close to each other and makeing them shoot a missles that the other cant evade so pretty mush a one shot kill dosent add to battle esthetics's cause i dont want to see hundreds of streaks go across the place that looks bad

thank you for helping to settle that cptkeys

Sins also doesn't do a lot of things realisticly, why should it's fighter combat be any differant? That's not a very compelling arguement. As for the whole, putting earth before your life. Think of it this way. If you needlessly sacrafice your life, because you didn't shoot the missile at the Seraph, the missile that's ONLY usefull against a Seraph. And so you died because you let it too close. That's one less Longsword, and atleast two less Humans fighting for Earth. Whereas you can fight to save yourself, which keeps you in the fight longer and allows you to down more Seraphs, and perhaps potentiall damage that super carrier that's about to destroy that SMAC platform!

As the saying goes, "Live to fight another day" Oh and, this isn't Sins. This is Halo. Just because fighters shoot little lasers doesn't mean a Longsword should do the same. If we're going by that logic why not give UNSC ships lasers, TEC ships had em after all.

none of the TEC fighters had lasers colt that had auto cannons

also UNSC prowlers had pulse lasers

and auto cannon isnt a laser first of all and like we have stated before the weapons load out are diffrent so we will settle this one type will probally have a anti ship load and the other will have an anti fighter load we probally limit the amount of missles and we will only do so if we can by giving fighter antimatter wich we will rename ammo and if we cant then no missles

A singular ship that was never mass produced isn't an affective counter to my sarcastic mocking of Keyes' comparison. Regardless, the point was that Sins is Sins, and isn't Halo. And comparing how units from each universe behave is just flat out foolish. A Sins ship wont act like a Halo ship, it's fact. They're two completely seperate universes, each with their own laws. While Sins goes the whole "WW2 dogfights with lazorz!" like SW, Halo follows a FAR more realistic view, and so they WOULD use missiles. You don't regress to using inferior tactics, you just don't.

I don't think you can give me even one example of someone choosing to use an inferior weapon, and tactic, when a superior weapon and tactic was sitting at their finger tips. It's like throwing a rock at a tank when you have a perfectly good RPG sitting next to you. It just wouldn't happen.

funny the halcyon cruiser acts just like the kol o wait thats because it is the kol with a diffrent mesh dont fool your self this is sins with a halo look nothing more nothing less we can not change how the units act in game jusst make it look like halo





i can missiles take a little while to lock so some how a seraph or banshee flies right in front of you you get 1 sec to react

your right behind him and you cant bank fast enough to get away from the explosion
and you cant fly through the debris if you damage something in the middle of a battle your f'ed not to mention you don't want one of your wingman flying through almost invisible debris and messing up his fighter

your trying to be stealthy and you don't want to give away your position bam you gun him down no trails or signatures

or your told to launch quickly not time to load missiles

the fact of the matter we are limited by this engine and we will do are best to make it feel like and look like halo

If you're willing to do your best to make it feel, and look like Halo. You'd take a realistic look as possible. That means using missiles. In your little scenerio, a Seraph flying right past you (Banshee's can't operate in space). You'd bank after him, lock on, and fire. A missile, even in modern times, can lock on almost instantly. I'd imagine a missile tracking system 500 years in the future wouldn't even need you to see him (Wait, isn't there a real life thing, that has a HUD on the pilots helmet, so he can hit enemies behind him if he looks at them?).

So yeah, considering bullets wouldn't one-hit kill him, and infact give away the fact you're chasing him, using a missile would be far more efficiant, and wise under those conditions. Also, missiles on fighters don't require "loading", these aren't submarines with torpedo tubes. A missile can launch the second you press the trigger, so in the time it takes you to fire the machine guns, you can fire a missile.

There's just no scenario that would make the machine guns more efficiant then the missiles. It's just military tactics, you can either expend a hundred bullets in an attempt to kill him, or you can expend one missile and guarantee you kill him. And to be so close you can't dodge the explosion, would mean you're 10 meters behind him. And if you're THAT close, you're an idiot.

Also, I found this video http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uIsuhAWVj6o and allthough it's fan-made, it pretty much sums up Halo combat. Holy missile spam batman! For the UNSC, it even shows a Longsword fireing a missile and one-hit killing a Seraph, which is how it would be. Also, Canada, see the glow at the end of the missiles? That's what I was talking about.

dude did you not read page 38 of first strike it cleary tells you it take s while to lock on and when i said loading i ment while your still in the hangars missiles dont jsut appear out of no where geeze also if you read any of the books you would know that longswords where bad against seraph so there you got no one kill missle for the longsword the point is mute

I read the books years ago, I don't have perfect memory. Also, if the Longsword has bullets, it has missiles. Infact, a Longsword would ALLWAYS have missiles if it's on active duty (Meaning not being repaired or anything, just sitting there.) So they can launch on a moments notice. In relation to Sins, Longswords in the hangars, or ships, would allways be stocked as they're meant to be called on at a moments notice.

As for it saying they were rubbish against Seraphs, I said that before but was told otherwise, and the wiki itself says they were on par with Seraph fighters. It also says their high-yield missiles could destroy unshielded targets, I.E. Seraphs. So the missiles the Longswords have WOULD one-hit kill a Seraph.


On another note, there's an aspect I think people are missing. And that's damages. In Sins you can wail on an enemy cap for AGES and not kill it, and I think the mod should head in a much faster pace when it comes to combat. I.E. only a couple MAC rounds would flat out kill a Covie ship, a couple Plasma torps would kill a human ship. Make it so if you pit 12 ships v 12 ships, the battle is over in a minute or so, after the first couple of volleys have been launched. Long engagements only existed when there was tons of ships, which would still be there if we had realistic damages.

yea true but if it was 12v12 the covies would win easily we are trying to keep it 3 to 1 if i disagree with that stament if it was just sitting there it would not have them cause if a fire broke out those missiles would be very bad to have there missiles are always secured until being prepped

I'm just saying, in small fleet engages, 12 v 3 or something, the battle should be over quick. And fire isn't a big risk for warheads. I mean even when not loaded they aren't stored in fire-proof containers or anything. Also, they'd be safer INSIDE the ship then out. As in modern day stealth fighters, the missiles are stored inside of it, and a little bomb-door opens and they're lowered, and fired. (All extremely rapidly, in like a second, tops) So the hull of the fighter would protect any sort of ammunition from harm.

umm yea they are stored in fire proof rooms after the forrestal accident they where stored in fire proof boxes
if we have a multi role fighter we wont get the same effect as if we made two seperate ones cause how would we say ok you attack the ship ohh crap there goes all our planes cause they wherent doing their jobs tisk tisk so ti just easier if we have one attack ships and the other attack fighters i am messing with the antimatter right now it will have no regenratetion so it would have limited supply if it works
now im going back to work on the mod while you twiddle your thumbs and think

It may be easier, but the easy road isn't allways the right road. There is NO mention of a dedicated bomber, and a dedicated fighter, on either side. Both sides use one, multi-role starfighter. The Seraph for the Covies, the Longsword for the UNSC. I allways just assumed I'd let them lose and they'd attack whichever targets they wanted, much as it is in Sins. but if it's that big of a deal, why not just add two buttons that toggle them. "Anti-fighter screen" and "Bombing runs". If you select the anti-fighter one, the Longswords/Seraphs only target enemy fighters, if you select bombing runs they only tagret ship/structures. And if you don't toggle anything, they attack at will.

That's a FAR better idea that basicly raping Halo canon when it comes to ships, and adding in dedicated Bombers and Fighters, just to follow in Sins footsteps. Like you said earlier, bring it as close to Halo as possible.

in a fighter vs fighter vs fighter match the UNSC only needs odds of 2:1 for an even match

well colt unfortunatly for our purposes we need to have 2 types or else we get fucked up the ass because our fighters were fighting ships with shields stronger than their weapons can handle even en masse. it may not be true to halo but unless we can find a way to prioritize targets that the fighters go for then we need the 2 classes.

furthermore a fighter is usually going to be outfited for one thing at a time since a nuke does nothing for you against a seraph.

good point theyw ill be on certain missons so to speak protect the ships against other fighter or protect the bombers

Just to clear this up: We ARE going to have only longswords as fighters/bombers. The only change is the armament; one armed with anti-fighter missiles/machine guns, and the bomber armed with shivas or something.

now can we all move on with progress.

People don't worry about minor frickin details like what weapon the longsword fighter armament uses. NOTHING IS FINAL, NOTHING. It can all be changed. This disagreement is not worth 2 pages worth of this mod's thread.

hey here's my first try at making a long sword took 2 1/2 hours