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:

Bold Italicized Underline Strikethrough Search the Wikipedia knowledge base | Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
Insert Image Insert Hyperlink Insert Email Insert FTP Link | Glow Shadow Marquee | Superscript Subscript Teletype | Insert Table Insert Code Insert Quote | Insert Unordered List Insert Ordered List Horizontal Rule Spoiler Off-Topic Embed a youtube video url Embed a vimeo video url | Remove Formatting Toggle View
Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips sealed Undecided Kiss Cry

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

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: February 12, 2018, 10:01:01 AM »

I generally like both of these suggestions.
Posted by: Iranon
« on: February 12, 2018, 05:17:55 AM »

Currently, the most practical way to control the range is to move to a waypoint away from the enemy and simply adjust speed as needed instead of changing orders. Assuming the enemy is willing to engage, which it usually is.

Otherwise, you risk having your ships sit motionlessly when something entirely predictable happens, like destroying the target you're keeping a set distance from. "Let's keep perfectly still until we figure out just how far we want to stay from whom" doesn't seem realistic. Suggestions:

1) maintain speed and heading until the new order processes
2) if reasonably easy to implement, let us choose "closest hostile" instead of a specific target.