Laughing at someone is no substitute for a logical argument. This issue is not so much about assualt cruiser survivability, but more about counter systems. Its not about whether assualt cuisers are tough or not, the issue is that assualt cruisers are not really an alternative at all to bombers when viewed from the perspective of the game's counter system.
[quote]If Very Heavy, then it WOULD force defenders to choose between bombers and fighters.[/quote] Tough choices are what strategy games are all about. I agree that very heavy armour may be a better solution then heavy armour. Using bombers defensively would be a novelty. [quote]add "Change assault cruiser armour type to be less vunerable to fighters?" up there[/quote] Agreed.
[quote]If you truly believed in the whole "if unit 1 and unit 2 do the same thing, they should have different counters" BS, then you should think that carriers shouldnt counter all 3 fleet heavy hitters (LRF, HC, Capital Ships). Those three are designed to be the biggest damage dealers in your fleet, yet theyre all countered by the SAME UNIT. [/quote] These tactical situations are quite different from bombers and assualt cruisers because carriers are not their only counter. Other unit
[quote]Simple, intuitive, makes sense. No need for me to have to map an arbitrary, complex system of counters in my head, making things complicated just for the sake of making things complicated.[/quote] No, no and no. This is not making things complicated for the sake of it. I for one would rather have a complex counter system then a overly simplistic one. [quote]Ogrovs and Adjudicators assault my structures. So do bombers. Fighters counter all of them.[/quote] Tha
[quote]You won't send the same ship in a different shape, you'll send a ship that is not weak against what your enemy is using.[/quote] Exactly. [quote]All the things that "assault" either my planet (siege frigs) or structures (ogrovs/adjudici) have the same armor type and are countered by fighters.[/quote] Seige frigates do not have the same role as bombers so this is an irrelevant comparison. If the enemy has already massed fighters, you can't use bombers. Ho
In my view, that still doesn't change the fact that it makes no sense in the counter system. The defender should need to respond by using different units in response to the new threat of assualt cruisers. The fact that he needs to respond to the new threat of enemy flak has got nothing to do with assualt cruiser balance.
[quote]1) Ogrovs are immune to telekinetic push[/quote] This is is not very important because the halcyon will destroy Ogrov's with its fighters anyway so this isn't much of an advantage. [quote]Since LF now counter assault cruisers, LRF must be used to protect the assault cruisers; HC or fighters must be used to overwhealm the LRF, so the assault cruiser-fielder must now field flaks/carriers w/ bombers.[/quote] Good point. Like you said, this opens up more tactical op
[quote]Actually, this seems perfectly fine and normal to me, unless someone can explain why it isn't.[/quote] It is extremely stupid that bombers and assualt cruisers are both countered by fighters. This means that having an alternate counter to stuctures is entirely redundant. For example, if you spam bombers to kill enemy structures, the enemy must spam fighters to counter you. However, you really want or need to kill his structures for whatever reason. However, you cant rel
I reckon that the Antorak's subversion should greatly increase the build times of all enemy SC in the same grav-well. This will mean that subversion would become very useful to use in almost any battle with the enemy.
[quote]Clonmac, Juletron, both of you are too stupid to bother with. It's bad enough arguing with idiots that can't accept the surface station data being wrong, I have zero interest in arguing with idiots that can't even read. Have fun with your delusions.[/quote] You have no idea what I was saying. You clearly didn't even read anything that I wrote. Nowhere did I say anything regarding surface station data. Nowhere did I say "AGW is correct" or even "AGW is wrong". Nowhere did I ta
I'll continue the account of America's involvement in Afghanistan. The CIA and the US military were winning. There were no successful attacks on US soil and the people were rallying to the US. Then, things changed. American soldiers often said that insurgents are much more highly trained now then they were a few years ago. Some American soldiers said that fighting the militants was "like fighting the marines." Al Qaeda retook parts of Afghanistan. Obama decided that eradicatio
[quote]Please tell me this was an intentionally stupid post? You were being funny right?[/quote] I hoped that you wouldn't need to ask. Of course, I did a feeble imitation of the stupidity of your post. Maybe thats why it wasn't so obvious.
[quote]It's possible there will be a 9.8 earthquake in Los Angeles. We should immediately raze every building in the state and establish building codes that can survive such an event! Shit happens, altering your life in any significant way for something with no evidence it will ever happen is really stupid. This isn't like buying a gun in case you get mugged, people actually get mugged, it's a statistical possibility based on documented observations, crime statistics
[quote]As you failed to do in your example, JuleTron. Were it not for stromatolites, we wouldn't be having this conversation.[/quote] It is very easy to criticise someone without explaining why or how they are wrong. Your mention of stromatolites only emphasises my point. Saying that CO2 levels were very high in the past is also meaningless. 200 million years ago the flora and fauna were totally different. They coped well in that environment with high CO2 levels, but that in
[quote]That is simply untrue. Take Brad as an example; he's a skeptic as far as AGW, but is building (has built?) a new house designed to be energy efficient. I'm much the same way, on a far humbler scale.[/quote] Interesting. I had never heard of anything like that before. However, he is in a small minority I'm sure. What I said still holds true for most of the politicians who deny AGW. It also holds true for many of the politicians who do believe in AGW as far as I know. [qu
[quote]When the existing balance and proportion are perturbed, some things are going to suffer... and some things are going to prosper. Nature makes no value judgments, only we humans do that.[/quote] This is not necessarily a good thing. When there is too much nutrients in a lake or pond, algae grows alot and in your words "prospers". However, the algae blocks sunlight so water plants die. As they rot, oxygen is stripped from the water and fish die. The ecosystem is then p
Heat also neutralises stingray and scorpion fish venom to my knowledge. [quote]If the proposed solution is bad, it is IMHO actually pretty responsible to say so, even if you do not have alternative to it.[/quote] Good point. However, if you point out that a certain solution is bad, without having an alternative, you must admit this and state the importance of coming up with an alternative. The media has put so much emphasis on why carbon trading schemes may not be a good thing
[quote]his comments were directed at me.. and everyone else that doesn't agree with him:[/quote] No I was not. I simply voiced what was imo reasonable and in a calm manner. You then attacked me and accused me of attacking you, something that I never had done. Others, understanding my post, tried to reason with you, but you blatantly disregarded their words. I never said that CO2 was pure evil or anything. You are right it is necessary for the environment. However, it is unreas
*Facepalm* Whether climate change is true or not, fossile fuels ARE damaging the environment. Whether climate change is true or not, green technology must replace fossil fuels as a main energy source. Fossil fuels cause acid rain which in turn causes numerous problems. Its simple high-school chemistry. When I see photos of people bulldozing rainforests, buidling coal plants, pumping countless tons of gases into the atmosphere and polluting people's water supplies*, I don't thi
This is pretty good. I particularly like the researchable Turncoat ability for the deliverance engine. However, the stealth attack ability doesn't seem possible in the game engine. Also, such an ability fits the Vasari far better because the Vasari are geurilla fighters.
[quote]ATM Support capships are named "support" for no reason:[/quote] I am saying that support caps should become the best at supporting other caps and fleets so that they can live up to their name.I don't think that their role should change. Deceiver, your story is impressive, but I doubt that this doesnt happen often enough to justify the marauder' s existance.
Support cap ships are not carrier caps so they shouldn't get lots of SC imo. [quote]Support caps are "support" only because of their name. Their dps/hull/shields are relatively weak, but their "support" abilities are relatively weak too (other "non-support" caps are usually better support to your fleet)[/quote] This obviously means that support cap ships need to live up to their name by effectively supporting the fleet, not by changing them into something else again that has n
[quote]The Kol deserves to be the best warship the TEC have, and currently it is not.[/quote] I agree that battleships could use a buff, but I feel that any buff to battleships must be accompanied by a buff to seige caps. The Marza and Desolator are very deadly seige ships, but if battleships get buffed they may get left for dead by battleships and become useless. Seige caps should have even greater DPS the battleships, but less durability. If there is a flaw in my logic, please point
Sins Forums