' Wrote:It's not just to appeal to players. Why in gods name wouldn't a capship not have the ability to counter a single bomber? especially 1100 years from the present. What? The people of FL haven't learned from all the carriers, cruisers destroyers, pre-dreadnoughts, dreadnoughts, super-dreadnoughts, and submarines sunken by bombers over the last 800 years to make some kind of defense against this (and don't say fighter escort because a capital ship as big as they are should be able to carry some kind of gun to compensate for being to slow and large to elude such an obvious tactic.
Secondly I don't know if you've noticed but a battleship has no thruster it is impossible to keep up let alone elude bomber fire. No matter how good you are the best one could do is e-kill in an asteroid field and hopefully bounce around dodging the fire This designers class ship most of all should have known "Hey this bitch ain't gonna be able to loop de loop around 40 incoming torpedoes let alone high velocity projectiles (like the SN). Finally Even if you gave the Osiris the agility of a startracker it's still a big ass hunk of metal making it easier to hit.
Instead of just nerfing every damn thing in sight every time someone whines, why don't we make weapons that are built for such threats? Bomber attacks are obvious considering the repair bill for any damages (compared to another capship) as well as survival rate (especially with the way things stand in this version) there's no need for any side to use capships against the other. Because they can easily be countered with little cost and less people being killed (seeing as bombers have only 2 or three people on board opposed to 300 people on a capship as well as the little cost of using and losing them). It's if you wanna be real it's not just capships that need fighter support in many games bombers or units equivalent to them need (fighter equivalent) fighter support.
Another note: I also realize if you aim directly to the cross the shots will go there but a center meter away they'll miss by a mile
I agree with a concept here. Its called the arms race. Instead of nerfing anything. Why dont we add better tech to compensate? Thats what we do in real life if there is a problem we compensate with addtional equipment.
Man < cargo so we design a "forklift" now we have, Forklift > cargo. Then we have "BIG cargo" come along.
"BIG cargo" > forklift the fork lift dont cut it so we build "Crane" Crane > BIG cargo.
Anyway this sleep deprived example means we build new tools when the old are inadequate.
Let avoid nerfing and "build", "NEW TECH". Disco needs new toys to help balance.
![[Image: Harvester00acopy.jpg]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a261/jc_lehner/Photoshop%20requests/Harvester00acopy.jpg)