Author Topic: Are Heavy Assault Fighters viable?  (Read 4895 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

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1059
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • 2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Supporter of the forum in 2023
    2024 Supporter 2024 Supporter : Supporter of the forum for 2024
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter :
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