Author Topic: Are Heavy Assault Fighters viable?  (Read 3918 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Narmio

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • N
  • Posts: 181
Re: Are Heavy Assault Fighters viable?
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2011, 11:54:15 PM »
Might be a better idea to have dedicated missile-interceptor fighters that could then escort your beam fighters.
 

Offline Hawkeye

  • Silver Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Are Heavy Assault Fighters viable?
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2011, 10:13:05 AM »
Would extremely small AMM missiles be viable on a beam fighter? You could get rather small ones if you sacrificed fuel/range to near point blank and research high warhead strength.

Minimum missile-size is 1.
Steve added this to counter some exploit using hundreds of 0.1 of even smaller submunitions to saturate enemy PD. (The AI is not able to cope with this, whereas a human would realize those to be harmless and ignore them)
Ralph Hoenig, Germany
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Are Heavy Assault Fighters viable?
« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2011, 10:51:17 AM »
With the last active sensor changes (v5.0?) close assault fighters (beam and missile) have been rendered to a next to useless category against anyone with a amm/cm umbrella... unsupported. 

Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley