Author Topic: Feedback Requested - IntCon Era Fleet  (Read 6842 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: Feedback Requested - IntCon Era Fleet
« Reply #45 on: April 10, 2018, 09:58:02 PM »
If the defender relies on AMMs and has a fixed point they are defending, you can fire decoy missiles at a waypoint associated with that point.  Fire missiles that cost 1/10 what an AMM does from 3 billion km away.  It may be an exploit of the AI to do this, of course.
 

Offline Gabethebaldandbold

  • last member of the noob swarm
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Feedback Requested - IntCon Era Fleet
« Reply #46 on: April 13, 2018, 09:04:28 PM »
If the defender relies on AMMs and has a fixed point they are defending, you can fire decoy missiles at a waypoint associated with that point.  Fire missiles that cost 1/10 what an AMM does from 3 billion km away.  It may be an exploit of the AI to do this, of course.
but he is thinking more like pvp tatics, so you would need to mix in some real missiles to make things interesting.
To beam, or not to beam.   That is the question
the answer is you beam. and you better beam hard.
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • o
  • Posts: 164
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: Feedback Requested - IntCon Era Fleet
« Reply #47 on: April 14, 2018, 10:13:19 AM »
As a non-combat related suggestion, you might consider increasing deployment times. My first generation of warships shared the 12-month intended deployments of your designs, but I increased it to 18 months in subsequent generations because my task groups weren't completing "task force training" before the crews became antsy, but the longer deployment-times proved beneficial of themselves. (I also use a very small, very slow fleet trainer---packs right into a carrier so I can go train afar afield, if need be---so my ships don't waste much fuel during training.)