If the dynamics of Battleship - Bomber combat needs to be changed, for example to make 3 or perhaps 4 bombers the minimum required to take down a Battleship, all that needs to be done is that Battleship shields need to be increased in capacity and recharge by a small factor, to counter the time it takes for a Bomber to restore enough power to fire a second SNAC (or 2 or 3 Bombers, depending on what is being done). As currently, the only reason a single Bomber cant solo a Battleship is because its shield recharges faster than the Bomber can fire its SNACs.
If something is to be done (I am not saying it will be done or should be done), slightly increasing Battleship shield capacity would be the most sensible way to go about it, not increasing armour hitpoints or anything like that, as a small shield increase would have little to no effect on Battleship - Battleship combat, but would be enough to make it necessary to field an extra bomber or two to take one down.
' Wrote:Obviously, independent capital ship captains are incompetent, because they do not adhere to strict role play regulations in the creation of their ships and characters.
And this relates to all indie cap captains? Seriously, don't just look at say one LNS and decide that everyone who does not have a few letters in brackets in front of their names are bad rp'ers.
' Wrote:Actually, a test for chain of command would be whether they are FR5'd or not, based on whether they adhere to FR2. (An effective system, which whilst can be abused by official factions, is in place.)
I do not see your logic here.
' Wrote:What you are suggesting is whether their RP is fully integrated into a faction's RP. (Which is a rather useless test as this would require internal knowledge and constant checking up and in on the faction, it's roster and so on, which means they may as well be part of the official faction.)
What I am suggesting is that a so-called military player know who his CO is. Every military man has a CO.
' Wrote:Of course, that goes against the whole idea of being independent. (Pick your play time, devote how much you want to.)
Again, what's an "independent" in military context?
' Wrote:Edit: Also, that would be multi-million. Somehow I think you are trying to make RL=FL.
You sure? I thought battleships cost a billion, and then the armor another billion.
' Wrote:If the dynamics of Battleship - Bomber combat needs to be changed, for example to make 3 or perhaps 4 bombers the minimum required to take down a Battleship, all that needs to be done is that Battleship shields need to be increased in capacity and recharge by a small factor, to counter the time it takes for a Bomber to restore enough power to fire a second SNAC (or 2 or 3 Bombers, depending on what is being done). As currently, the only reason a single Bomber cant solo a Battleship is because its shield recharges faster than the Bomber can fire its SNACs.
If something is to be done (I am not saying it will be done or should be done), slightly increasing Battleship shield capacity would be the most sensible way to go about it, not increasing armour hitpoints or anything like that, as a small shield increase would have little to no effect on Battleship - Battleship combat, but would be enough to make it necessary to field an extra bomber or two to take one down.
Well I think I will be collecting these admin quotes as my signature "Collecting Admin quotes. So I gave him a Moderator one." -Moveit56 "Tractorlancer" -Jansen "I'm higher than aerelm's ping. ~Narc "Some random quote" -mwerte LWB is the bestest! ~ Moveit56 "Will you be my minion? -Mrs. Altejago No, he's mine ~Snoopy Wow, the Team's memory desk in this sig? K. I'm in ~ Dimon
' Wrote:well, 3x bust will be cool alternative to give battleships more weapons (effective one) against little targets.
At least those 2 bombers will better avoid the fight then trying to shoot that battleship.
I'll try some solutions for battleships on local server to see how some ways of fixing it could work.
But most of them requires view distance to player ships to be extended to 15k >.>
yes what about giving battleships next for example 13 turret slots and increasing teir energy core
Those 13 extra slots will be ONLY for Solaris turrets or Secondaries or FLaks for example.. that will improve their defense against Bombers... and then they will not be so easy prey for small vessels as bombers..
Although it wont change the BSvs BS fights cause solaris turrets are useless agianst Caps..(maybe they can find use when shooting Gunboats).
and... You can improve the flaks.. for example bigger Area damage-- much bigger and not so big Energy draining
Well I think I will be collecting these admin quotes as my signature "Collecting Admin quotes. So I gave him a Moderator one." -Moveit56 "Tractorlancer" -Jansen "I'm higher than aerelm's ping. ~Narc "Some random quote" -mwerte LWB is the bestest! ~ Moveit56 "Will you be my minion? -Mrs. Altejago No, he's mine ~Snoopy Wow, the Team's memory desk in this sig? K. I'm in ~ Dimon
Capitals should be huge cumbersome beasts of war that take forever to kill by smalls. Since we cant use RL comparison, lets put it in another way.
Make them slow, with several times more hull, kill the silly capital armor upgrades, give them bigger core and more guns. A fleet battle where two or more battleships exchange volleys at very long range can be excellent. Not current head on charge that you gotta do so bombers dont pick you from distance.
Also, some other guns would do nice, but meh. Nothing aint happening at all right so lets keep on ranting!:D
' Wrote:Capitals should be huge cumbersome beasts of war that take forever to kill by smalls. Since we cant use RL comparison, lets put it in another way.
Make them slow, with several times more hull, kill the silly capital armor upgrades, give them bigger core and more guns. A fleet battle where two or more battleships exchange volleys at very long range can be excellent. Not current head on charge that you gotta do so bombers dont pick you from distance.
Also, some other guns would do nice, but meh. Nothing aint happening at all right so lets keep on ranting!:D
Well I think I will be collecting these admin quotes as my signature "Collecting Admin quotes. So I gave him a Moderator one." -Moveit56 "Tractorlancer" -Jansen "I'm higher than aerelm's ping. ~Narc "Some random quote" -mwerte LWB is the bestest! ~ Moveit56 "Will you be my minion? -Mrs. Altejago No, he's mine ~Snoopy Wow, the Team's memory desk in this sig? K. I'm in ~ Dimon
If battleships get buffed, they should be more restricted.
Rather, if they get buffed, the likelihood is that they will become more restricted.
Can't have your cake and eat it too gents.
Oh yeah.
I recently changed the loadout on a shared Osiris, so it now has four solaris and a razor.
They're pretty good, you know. Not as good as 9 solaris and 2 razors, but you wouldn't think it would be.
' Wrote:If battleships get buffed, they should be more restricted.
Rather, if they get buffed, the likelihood is that they will become more restricted.
Can't have your cake and eat it too gents.
Oh yeah.
I recently changed the loadout on a shared Osiris, so it now has four solaris and a razor.
They're pretty good, you know. Not as good as 9 solaris and 2 razors, but you wouldn't think it would be.
4 solaris are plenty to take out bomber or fighters if flown right.
Yes Battleships should be restricted in movement.
![[Image: montezuma1.png]](http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss260/Gaelic_Aztec/montezuma1.png)
![[Image: SLRU.png]](http://i668.photobucket.com/albums/vv46/Nighthawkashes/SLRU.png)
![[Image: hispaniansubcopy.png]](http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/7625/hispaniansubcopy.png)
![[Image: elconsejeroub2copy.png]](http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/9096/elconsejeroub2copy.png)
![[Image: skype_devil.gif]](http://elmir.ua/new_forum/images/smilies/skype_devil.gif)
~Snoopy
![[Image: n24ZouO.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/n24ZouO.gif)
