Aurora 4x
New Players => The Academy => Topic started by: jiduthie on August 29, 2011, 08:50:42 AM
-
For production and logistical reasons I want to cut down on missile use. The fleet is young with only a few missile cruisers plus escorts, but has been experimenting with missile-armed fighters. While my best missile/kinetic scientist has just kicked the bucket, a decent energy weapons replacement has just appeared and I'm thinking now might be the time to branch out.
Would meson armed fighters or FACS provide a good complement? I've noticed a few older threads saying that beam armed fighters are "useless" "unsupported. " Does this still hold true? What kind of support would they need in order to be effective?
-
For production and logistical reasons I want to cut down on missile use. The fleet is young with only a few missile cruisers plus escorts, but has been experimenting with missile-armed fighters. While my best missile/kinetic scientist has just kicked the bucket, a decent energy weapons replacement has just appeared and I'm thinking now might be the time to branch out.
Would meson armed fighters or FACS provide a good complement? I've noticed a few older threads saying that beam armed fighters are "useless" "unsupported. " Does this still hold true? What kind of support would they need in order to be effective?
You'll probably still want missiles to keep the OpFor busy while your fighters close. Beam armed fighters need to be VERY close to be effective, which is why most people prefer missile-armed.
-
In my own NATO vs Soviet Union campaign, the Soviet have been using railgun-armed FACs. These have proved effective in jump point defence and ideal for chasing down unarmed enemy ships, such as freighters or survey ships. They wouldn't fare very well though in deep space engagements against missile-armed opponents. My own experience suggests a mixed fleet with beam and missile capability is best as you run into so many different situations.
Steve
-
In my own NATO vs Soviet Union campaign, the Soviet have been using railgun-armed FACs. .
Steve
I missed that! I've used the Trans-Newtonian Campaign and the NATO Starting Forces as inspiration when trying to design my own fleet, but I haven't read very far into the NATO-Soviet campaign.
But yeah, the idea isn't to replace the cruisers/missile fighters but just add another option which can kill things without placing further strain on ordinance production. Covering the mesons with missile fire seemed like it might work but I guess it might be worth it just to try and find out. I've been using hit and run tactics against my current(first) enemy because I'll destroy a bunch and then be out of ammo. Then it's another year of ordinance production before I can make another attack. It's slowly working, but I'm worried about what will happen when I run into something that can follow me through the jump point!
-
Very fast gauss-cannon armed fighters prooved effective against Invaders in my last campaign.
-
I considered gauss. Did you reduce the size and take the hit to accuracy?
-
I considered gauss. Did you reduce the size and take the hit to accuracy?
Yes i heavely minimized its size, to achive very small but speedy, maneuverable fighters. I compensate to hit accuracy by sheer fighters numbers.
-
Offensive beam fighters have a huge handicap to overcome in Aurora, they have to be able to survive offensive and defensive fire to reach the short ranges dectated by the limited size of the weapsons they can carry.
The maximum size for a fighter is 10 hull spaces. This is a limitation for fighter factory production, anything larger requires a shipyard slip.
Fighter engines are 1hs and your limited to only 1.
The smallest beam weapon, that is not reduced size, is 3hs. Plus you need a powerplant, figure between .5hs to 2hs for this depending on capacitor in the beam and the cyclic rate you want.
Your also need a beam fire control, at least 1 command module, and some fuel.
At this point the fighter is someplace north of 6hs with less than 20% hs in engine and this leads to fighters that are bearly faster than ships with 25%hs in engine even though fighter engines produce 3x more power per hs than miltary ship engines. Yes, reduced size lasers exist in the game, but the recharge penalty means that thier effectiveness is greatly reduced.
Gauss Cannon have been mentioned. They're extremely short range when compared to all other beam weapons and twice as massive. The reduced size versions sacrifice accuracy to the point near uselessness.
The only offset to these handicaps is swarms of hundreds of beam fighters. You have to provide more targets for the OPFOR to eliminate than they have to ability to deal with. This presents it's own problem, hanger space so that the maintenance clock doesn't kill them. For a planetary defense this can work, but offensively is segnificantly larger problem.
Strategicly and Logisticly, beam fighters are a losing proposity in Aurora.
-
Hm. Fighter engine also provides reactor power? Since the fighter engine only works on fighters, i don't see how it could unbalance anything.
-
Hm. Fighter engine also provides reactor power? Since the fighter engine only works on fighters, i don't see how it could unbalance anything.
???? Not sure where your getting this.
-
???? Not sure where your getting this.
<suggestion to make alleviate at least one problem with beam fighters, have them generate power on their own without need for reactors>
-
Strategicly and Logisticly, beam fighters are a losing proposity in Aurora.
Are beam FACs any better off? Fiddling with the class designer it seems like I can fit 4 or so armor on one while still keeping it's speed above 10000kps. But at the point you're using FACs perhaps perhaps its just as well to build destroyer or cruiser sized beam ships.
I've seen it suggested elsewhere on the board about giving fighters an ability roughly analogous to agility on missiles that would allow them to evade incoming fire. If improving fighters is on the agenda, about which I'm way too green to make a judgment, I'd like to see that ability being tied to pilot/commander skill in some way. But, I'll admit to having a soft spot for that type of man management in games.
-
Gauss do not need power plant. I used these against Invaders. 50-70 fighters on one carrier vessel.
A-660 Arrado G class Strikefighter 215 tons 6 Crew 68.1 BP TCS 4.3 TH 24 EM 0
11162 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 1.5
Annual Failure Rate: 3% IFR: 0.1% Maint Capacity 20 MSP Max Repair 38 MSP Est Time: 4.85 Years
Henchel/50 Magneto-plasma Drive A0E6 (1) Power 48 Fuel Use 6000% Signature 24 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 0.7 billion km (17 hours at full power)
STURM (3/3/25) Fighter Gauss Cannon (1x3) Range 30,000km TS: 11162 km/s Accuracy Modifier 25% RM 3 ROF 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ECHO/B (0/1.25/1) Fighter Fire Control (1) Max Range: 80,000 km TS: 20000 km/s 88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
edit: corrected...
-
Gauss Cannon have been mentioned. The reduced size versions sacrifice accuracy to the point near uselessness.
I couldn't disagree more. Sure, in a one on one matchup the 5% to hit rating would be too low to rely on, but when a single hanger deck can hold eight low tech variants and ten high tech ones (nine if you adjust your BFC to track at your max speed, 200k/sec, heh), you'll never be in such a situation. You'll be looking at reduced overall firepower since a larger percentage of the tonnage of your fighter force will be engines/etc, but you'll gain a massive speed advantage.
Also, remember to take full advantage of the +power, -efficiency tech line for the fighter engines.
-
That looks like it will work against Invaders however they have relatively few weapon mounts and FC, other NPR's will do much better against these fighters having lots of AMM missiles , beam weapons and quite a few FC. It may work if the NPR AI limitations keep them targeting one fighter at a time which would make them even more effective vs Invaders , but to me that would feel like an exploit. As I know a similar fighter strike against one of my fleets would have serious problems due to the AMM launchers being able to engage multiple fighters and kill them before they reach gauss range.
When I want to reduce dependency on missiles I built larger ships with heavy beam weapons, although this works less well against Invaders as unless you have good engines closing on them with a heavy ship is hard. If you have good defense against missiles with turrets and AMM's you can even beat an NPR fleet with faster ships by advancing on their base world and killing them when they rearm or run out of missiles
-
This is a little crazy, I know, but I'm tempted to try it:
PROTO-FAC1 class Heavy Fighter 800 tons 87 Crew 194.5 BP TCS 16 TH 160 EM 0
10000 km/s Armour 4-7 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 4
Maint Life 3.24 Years MSP 38 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 5 5YR 82 Max Repair 60 MSP
GB Magneto-plasma Drive E60 (1) Power 160 Fuel Use 600% Signature 160 Armour 0 Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 3.8 billion km (4 days at full power)
15cm C6 Plasma Carronade (1) Range 60,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 6-6 RM 1 ROF 5 6 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S02 40-10000 (1) Max Range: 80,000 km TS: 10000 km/s 88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (1) Total Power Output 6 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Thoughts?
-
Interesting idea with the carronade fighter. I would actually use a 15cm laser as you will do a lot more damage at the longer ranges your fire control will handle. The carronade is basically a 15cm laser with no range multiplier. It is also a lot cheaper than the laser as 15cm is the smallest size and there is no range multiplier. A 15cm laser with comparable tech however will be doing at least 4, and probably 5 points of damage all the way to the max range of your fire control. This might make a big difference in their effectivness. I would really have to playtest this however to tell if the extra cost was worth it in this case.
Brian
-
You're right, it's even the same size with the same power requirement. Strange.
-
The main difference between lasers and carronades is the development cost. This also means that for a given caliber weapon the cost to design the weapon is going to be much cheaper for the carronade. There is one other difference and that is the damage pattern. Lasers are deep penetrators while carronades do there damage like railguns with broader craters. A 30 cm laser is going to get through a couple more levels of armour than the 30cm carronade. They will do the same total damage, just in a different pattern. Also the laser will probably do more damage at anything beyond point blank as it gets a range multiplier while the carronade is stuck without one.
Personally I almost never research carronades as the cheaper cost just does not balance out the range penalties compared to the laser.
Brian
-
I couldn't disagree more. Sure, in a one on one matchup the 5% to hit rating would be too low to rely on, but when a single hanger deck can hold eight low tech variants and ten high tech ones (nine if you adjust your BFC to track at your max speed, 200k/sec, heh), you'll never be in such a situation. You'll be looking at reduced overall firepower since a larger percentage of the tonnage of your fighter force will be engines/etc, but you'll gain a massive speed advantage.
Also, remember to take full advantage of the +power, -efficiency tech line for the fighter engines.
adjust your BFC to track at your max speed, 200k/sec
Not going to happen without a change to the database. The best BFC tracking speed is 100k/kps with a level 12 system at 4x tracking speed.
I know that you disagree with my analysis of reduced GC accuracy, but so far I haven't seen any demostration to refute it. I would really like to see one that realisticly demostrates that accepting a sub 5% chance to hit is stratigicly and tacticly effective and acceptable.
-
Not going to happen without a change to the database. The best BFC tracking speed is 100k/kps with a level 12 system at 4x tracking speed.
I know that you disagree with my analysis of reduced GC accuracy, but so far I haven't seen any demostration to refute it. I would really like to see one that realisticly demostrates that accepting a sub 5% chance to hit is stratigicly and tacticly effective and acceptable.
Except you failed to factor in the free 4x from being a fighter restricted BFC. Now, the fact that that doesn't restrict a player from further increasing the tracking speed may be a bug, but it's currently possible to hit the 200k mark.
In terms of PD, I'd agree with you that one would want to use larger gauss designs simply because you need PD to be as consistent as possible. If I had to choose between taking down a guaranteed four missiles or flipping a coin to see if I'd take down either eight or zero, I'd take the four in a heartbeat.
For the less critical applications of gauss weapons, however, that choice isn't as easy to make. Fighters benefit heavily from the high speeds that miniaturized gauss weapons allow, and the only weapon smaller than a fully miniaturized gauss cannon is a size three or smaller box launcher.
The thing is, statistically speaking, the gauss weapons have the same expected hit rate per HS, with the lone exception of the 5HS/85% version, which is marginally better than the others (It should be 83.33%).
-
Except you failed to factor in the free 4x from being a fighter restricted BFC. Now, the fact that that doesn't restrict a player from further increasing the tracking speed may be a bug, but it's currently possible to hit the 200k mark.
In terms of PD, I'd agree with you that one would want to use larger gauss designs simply because you need PD to be as consistent as possible. If I had to choose between taking down a guaranteed four missiles or flipping a coin to see if I'd take down either eight or zero, I'd take the four in a heartbeat.
For the less critical applications of gauss weapons, however, that choice isn't as easy to make. Fighters benefit heavily from the high speeds that miniaturized gauss weapons allow, and the only weapon smaller than a fully miniaturized gauss cannon is a size three or smaller box launcher.
The thing is, statistically speaking, the gauss weapons have the same expected hit rate per HS, with the lone exception of the 5HS/85% version, which is marginally better than the others (It should be 83.33%).
Ah, you're correct that I didn't consider fighter BFC and I should have. But your not taking into account the minimum tech to achieve that speed. It requires the 9th level and costs 495,000 research points alone to reach. At that same tech level you'll at best be seeing 125t fighters with speeds around 45k/kps which means you will have to turret that GC to use the BFC's superior tracking speed. Offensive missile will average 125k/kps and AMM/CM will be somewhere above 125% of that speed.
That really isn't the relevent argument. Can you consistently field 12 platforms with the smallest GC to attempt to match the potential of 1 full size system? Assuming that you can fit the smaller system into a 125t fighter (that's only 2.5hs), the required support just went up by a factor of 12. That is the strategic and logistic fail. It's a tactical wash at best.
-
Ah, you're correct that I didn't consider fighter BFC and I should have. But your not taking into account the minimum tech to achieve that speed. It requires the 9th level and costs 495,000 research points alone to reach. At that same tech level you'll at best be seeing 125t fighters with speeds around 45k/kps which means you will have to turret that GC to use the BFC's superior tracking speed. Offensive missile will average 125k/kps and AMM/CM will be somewhere above 125% of that speed.
That really isn't the relevent argument. Can you consistently field 12 platforms with the smallest GC to attempt to match the potential of 1 full size system? Assuming that you can fit the smaller system into a 125t fighter (that's only 2.5hs), the required support just went up by a factor of 12. That is the strategic and logistic fail. It's a tactical wash at best.
Err?
...a single hanger deck can hold eight low tech variants and ten high tech ones (nine if you adjust your BFC to track at your max speed, 200k/sec, heh)...
I was primarily commenting on the fact that, as your tech progresses, you'll be able to carry a larger number of GC fighters in each hanger deck. I fail to see the relevance of the tech cost.
The comparison to a full sized system isn't completely accurate, either, as a full sized system will get only a single burst, while the fighters can get in multiple, the exact amount depending on the enemy's reload speed. Sure, fighters in an anti-missile role can be countered in numerous ways (ECM, armor, faster), but all of the counters result in weaker warheads hitting your ships. And once you get to the end game engines/BFC, the fighters will almost match their full sized counterparts in a strict PD role simply because they have twice the tracking speed for their BFC and weapon.
-
I usually use Meson armed gunboats as system defense ships, I can usually fit one or two smallish guns on one boat without sacrificing a lot of speed. They are handy for stopping the almost inevitable tiny missile ships that all my NPRs seem to love to send ahead of their main fleets. They mostly do this by taking a few hits and using their high speed to throw accuracy off and run their magazines dry.
Also nice as commerce raiders and to deal with scouts, and for the odd Invader whose shields I can't get through any other way.
-
Missiles are still better than any of these options - improve you missile tech and ordenance production rate :)
My new Mk IV AMM corvette has 6 launchers and 3 MFCs (372 missiles)- can see and hit a fighter at 10mK and can engage 3 targets with 2 missiles on each every 5 second pulse.... you a going to need a LOT of fighters to get anywhere near beam range of 6 of these things -
-
I was primarily commenting on the fact that, as your tech progresses, you'll be able to carry a larger number of GC fighters in each hanger deck. I fail to see the relevance of the tech cost.
Not by much. Yes armor does get lighter, but not much else does. Really the only other relevent tech the can help with hull space useage in a fighter is fire control. Even that doesn't have much wiggle room. Keep in mind that a single hanger is limited to a capacity of 1000t(20hull spaces). Yes, you can build a carrier with more hangers to support the increased number of fighters.
The comparison to a full sized system isn't completely accurate, either, as a full sized system will get only a single burst, while the fighters can get in multiple, the exact amount depending on the enemy's reload speed.
No it's not accurate. I only did an off the cuff hs usage comparison. The accuracy comparison is actually worse, the .5hs GC is 1/12th the size of the full size system and 1/20 as accurate. The real point is that logistics side increases at a higher rate to field enough fighters with the reduced systems to equal to potential of the full size system.
For agruements sake assume that it takes a 500t fighter to field a 6hs GC and 125t fighter to field a .5hs GC. Assuming a carrier with only 1 hanger you can field 2 500t fighters or 8 125t fighters. The larger fighters are fielding 12hs of weapons and the light fighter are only fielding 4hs of weapons. To make matters worse there is a much lower damage potential in the smaller fighters for the same hanger capacity. You need 3x the hanger capacity too field the same weapons hs and 5x to field the same damage potential.
Sure, fighters in an anti-missile role can be countered in numerous ways (ECM, armor, faster), but all of the counters result in weaker warheads hitting your ships.
Tech, counter tech doesn't always result in weaker hits. It's also a recursive loop argument.
And once you get to the end game engines/BFC, the fighters will almost match their full sized counterparts in a strict PD role simply because they have twice the tracking speed for their BFC and weapon.
Max tech arguments are also pointless.
This has really drifted from the OP's question. No matter what beam system you place in a fighter it has to survive to attack range, in the current Aurora environment this is a low order probability.
-
Not by much. Yes armor does get lighter, but not much else does. Really the only other relevent tech the can help with hull space useage in a fighter is fire control. Even that doesn't have much wiggle room.
This is a thing: I always thought of a fighter as a guy (or girl, or wormlike alien) who pointed their fighter at something and pulls the trigger-- so the pilot IS the fire control...
Do fighters need a conceptual overhaul? I have always felt that the best counter for fighters should be fighters, so fighter ECM should dramatically increase in effectiveness to protect against missiles and ships, but that shouldn't effect fighter on fighter combat. But if we made them much more effective at short ranges... I don't know that the AI could handle it too well. As it stands, im just going to use them as glorified planetary defense squadrons and intense strike groups.
-
The only use beam armed fighters have to me would be against fleets that have expended their defencive and offensive missile stocks, as a clean up crew to run & gun them down. As such only a small number would be used.
-
Do fighters need a conceptual overhaul?
I would say no. Fighters are just very small spacecraft . The difference between then and normal ships is the difference between a Motor Torpedo Boat and a Battleship , not the difference between an F-18 and an Aircraft carrier. This arguement keeps coming round and I have yet to hear a good explanation about why fighters should be different from ships. For Beam fighters that means they will not be effective against ships , they are simply a bad idea .
-
To me, attacking a hostile fleet with beam weapons is like attacking a current carrier group with just machine guns on your fast jets. Granted, if you sent enough aircraft you are going to do some damage but not without loosing a whole host of fighters.
Compare that to the same fighters attacking some commercial shipping or a very lightly armed ship and you get a far better result, again reflected in current mechanics.
So all in all think beam armed fighters v hostile fleets about work. I would however like to see something that makes them better in fighter to fighter combat.
-
One thing I have found beam armed fighters good for is basically a maned weapon pod for defending a fixed location. A fighter with an any sized engine a little bit of maintenance can be left for a really long time guarding a point (ie jump point or planet) and they will be able to fire really quickly when an enemy comes through. Also because of their small size they actually work fairly well as point defense vs missiles or fighters. A fighter with a 12cm laser has a pretty good chance of killing another fighter on its first hit at close range. As close range is what you are likely to get with a jump point assault this works well.
Brian
-
I have found that Gauss armed fighters for WP defense are pretty nasty.
I was using 10 of these per squadron, along with sensors from a large well armored defense station/hanger.
F-5 Mako class Fighter 250 tons 6 Crew 52.5 BP TCS 5 TH 16.8 EM 0
9600 km/s Armour 2-3 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 2
Annual Failure Rate: 5% IFR: 0.1% Maint Capacity 13 MSP Max Repair 14 MSP Est Time: 5.6 Years
Rolls Royce E740 MPD Fighter Drive (1) Power 48 Fuel Use 6000% Signature 16.8 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 0.6 billion km (17 hours at full power)
Gauss Cannon R3-33 (1x3) Range 30,000km TS: 9600 km/s Accuracy Modifier 33% RM 3 ROF 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Durant Indigo/1 Fighter Cannon Control (1) Max Range: 48,000 km TS: 16000 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Two to four squadrons on a warp point shredded enemy ships coming through. I was seeing a ship die about every 10 seconds with these guys attacking, the NPR armor was fairly light though, 4 or 5.
-
I have found that Gauss armed fighters for WP defense are pretty nasty.
I was using 10 of these per squadron, along with sensors from a large well armored defense station/hanger.
F-5 Mako class Fighter 250 tons 6 Crew 52.5 BP TCS 5 TH 16.8 EM 0
9600 km/s Armour 2-3 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 2
Annual Failure Rate: 5% IFR: 0.1% Maint Capacity 13 MSP Max Repair 14 MSP Est Time: 5.6 Years
Rolls Royce E740 MPD Fighter Drive (1) Power 48 Fuel Use 6000% Signature 16.8 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 0.6 billion km (17 hours at full power)
Gauss Cannon R3-33 (1x3) Range 30,000km TS: 9600 km/s Accuracy Modifier 33% RM 3 ROF 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Durant Indigo/1 Fighter Cannon Control (1) Max Range: 48,000 km TS: 16000 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Two to four squadrons on a warp point shredded enemy ships coming through. I was seeing a ship die about every 10 seconds with these guys attacking, the NPR armor was fairly light though, 4 or 5.
How would the fare against an oponent that uses squadron transit with a jump radius that allows them to recover from jumpblindness before your fighters can reach attack range?
-
How would the fare against an oponent that uses squadron transit with a jump radius that allows them to recover from jumpblindness before your fighters can reach attack range?
But you can horde fighters, they are expendable, nothing more than flesh and steel! If Steve only allows us to use kamikaze fighters...
-
But you can horde fighters, they are expendable, nothing more than flesh and steel! If Steve only allows us to use kamikaze fighters...
Actually it is not that easy to horde your fighters. The only place that will keep them from running up time on the maintenance clock is in a hanger bay. If they are just at a planet that doesn't do it, even if there is more than enough maintenance facilities available. This means that you can't just produce fighters and have them available whenever you need them. You need a hanger bay and the installation it is in is going to require minerals to maintain.
Brian
-
Thats correct. I have defense stations that are nothing more than hangers, maintenance and missile defense. They are armored heavily to take point blank missile shots. I have additional stations that sit back at range and provide either beam defense up close, or missiles at range.
The way the AI selects targets right now, they enemy usually goes for the stations first, letting the fighters close. Turrets tend the be the biggest issue. Short range lasers/mesons/Gauss tend to open up on the fighters as they have no other targets, assuming there are no missiles inbound.
The big advantage is that the fighters can sit in their stations for very long periods of time and launch instantly. I can also crank out a couple a month due to the low build points required, making them pretty cost efficient.
They are not perfect, but for that specific role of jump point defense, they do a good job and are cheap.
A few stations, some fighters and a chunk of mines, and I can pretty much close down a warp point to squadron transits.
-
Actually it is not that easy to horde your fighters. The only place that will keep them from running up time on the maintenance clock is in a hanger bay. If they are just at a planet that doesn't do it, even if there is more than enough maintenance facilities available. This means that you can't just produce fighters and have them available whenever you need them. You need a hanger bay and the installation it is in is going to require minerals to maintain.
Brian
Actualy i did not notice maintance clock rising while they are in hangars on carrier vessel.
-
How would the fare against an opponent that uses squadron transit with a jump radius that allows them to recover from jumpblindness before your fighters can reach attack range?
By themselves, poorly. I coordination with other defenses, rather well. It depends on the jump range. I had an NPR who had a pretty big jump radius, which was playing hell with my existing defenses that were based on mines. I had to move everything back from the warp point, which made concentration a challenge.
I built some smaller stations that only had a squadron each, that gave me at least one squadron within distance, and two others that could close quickly. In conjunction with bigger mines with longer range missiles, it works reasonable well.
-
Actualy i did not notice maintance clock rising while they are in hangars on carrier vessel.
That is the only place that the maintenance clock will not rise. Anywhere else that is not a boat bay, or hanger bay and they will be adding time to the mainenance clock.
Brian