Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: June 19, 2012, 12:40:04 PM »

Is this a game balance decision? It kind of make sense that a planet with maintainance facilities would be able to maintain fighters that are based on the ground at airports/spaceports.

It is a game balance decision. Because one maintenance facilities can support an unlimited number of ships, a couple could support hundreds of fighters. This rule encourages you to have somewhere to base fighters before you build them.

Steve
Posted by: metalax
« on: June 19, 2012, 09:50:00 AM »

No, they don't. In fact, fighters can only use hangar decks to avoid maintenance failures. Maintenance facilities don't work for fighters.

Steve

Is this a game balance decision? It kind of make sense that a planet with maintainance facilities would be able to maintain fighters that are based on the ground at airports/spaceports.
Posted by: Cavgunner
« on: June 18, 2012, 06:09:22 PM »

Thanks, after discovering how bulky maintenance modules are now, I was actually hoping that this would be the case.  This means I can still build one-squadron fighter outpost PDC's to watch over outlying systems.  :)
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: June 18, 2012, 03:55:19 AM »

Do fighters that have access to a Hangar Deck but not a maintenance facility suffer from maintenance failures?

No, they don't. In fact, fighters can only use hangar decks to avoid maintenance failures. Maintenance facilities don't work for fighters.

Steve
Posted by: Cavgunner
« on: June 18, 2012, 03:42:51 AM »

Do fighters that have access to a Hangar Deck but not a maintenance facility suffer from maintenance failures?