|
I'm still here, I just lost faith in my ability to make decent content posts and felt like the thread was dying. Then I checked back and saw it was ticking on without me and felt crap for abandoning it.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
How do I make my custom ship usable as a flagship? Welcome back, Phrosphor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
Going off Phrosphor's hint he's looking at Flagship Tenders, I'm going to propose some tankers with utility. The target speed for the Flagship is 200 kph, therefore Tenders must be at or above 200 kph. First is a missile-tanker: The Dvoret.  4 A-100s and 2250 tons of fuel for 12570. Personally, I think 4 missiles is enough at one time, before landing and rearming. You'll also notice I'm using the big RD-51's for these Tenders, and that's because when it comes to being tanker, you are prioritizing one of two features: Speed (keeping up with a fast strike ship like the Audacity) or Consumption (Using a little fuel itself so more fuel hungry ships have more fuel to feed). The RD-51 is more fuel efficient than a D-30S for the thrust it puts out, but with the 1.14 changes it's a bit more pricey at 2080 for the hull and the engine. Second is a carrier-tanker: The Ravnia.  4 LA-29's and a lot more range than the Dvoret, but that's because missiles are heavier to lug around. It takes 3 D-30S's to come close to the thrust of a RD-51, a difference of 980 bux and 45 tons more consumption. In the long run, money for fuel will be a big consideration, especially if you have to land at a non-fuel town to top-off enough to make it to the next place. The less you burn, the less you spend next time. Since we're targeting slower speeds, instead of trying to keep up with something like a Lightning, our priority is keeping consumption down if we can keep our low speed target. Third is defense-tanker: The Basegi.  On each side is 2 sprint missiles and two 57mms, with a still respectable near 6000km range, to step out of the Flagship group and intercept incoming strike craft and cruise missiles. A bit of slat armor of both light and heavy hulls makes sure that failures are somewhat compensated, though I would not tempt a nuclear explosion. Bear in mind that all ships burn fuel at the same rate no matter how fast they're going, be it reduced by the player via the throttle, or forced reduction by the slowest ship in the specific strike group. There is no "efficiency curve" for slowing down. So what kind of Flagship are we looking at for the sake of these Fleet Tenders? 200 kph is our target speed, and with a lot of stripping down the Svestapol could hit that, with reduced functionality. The Keresztes I posted earlier hit 230 kph, but not only is it nearly as expensive as the Svestapol, it's an ugly brick that will gobble fuel and your credits to keep running. We still want something laterally functional, and we want to look on it with some affection. My Flagship proposal: The Ihtiman.  Phrosphor noted that the "bookmark" hull pieces, when used en-mass can start to look really ugly, and at a certain point efficiency does make ships unlikable from an ascetic necessity. Boxes might be efficient, but they have no character. Thus, I have done my best to use a wider range of hull pieces, conscientiously placed, to alleviate the swiss cheese look of mass bookmark hulls. Important ship defense sections and equipment use Heavy hull pieces. However, in certain places, I had to revert a full hull to a bookmark hull. The reason for this, is that 1.14 introduced another wrench in firing angles: Sufficiently raised hull pieces will also block guns. Therefore, I had to ensure the only firing angle blockages were the large fuel tanks, for which I could at least place additional guns to compensate. Granted, Phrosphor has noted he doesn't want to take the Flagship into a fight, which makes a lot of the armament redundant. However the AI on Hard is a bit more dogged determined, so we can't leave that possibility to chance. Which in combination with the faster flight speed, it also does this with about 2/3rds the fuel of the Svestapol, which means it can refuel and redeploy faster. Also it's really fun to hold down both mouse buttons and see the DAKKA fly. You'll also notice that half of the runway is blocked off, preventing the interior 4 fighters from launching. Yeah, it's style choice. Also consider those 4 fighters are VERY well protected, and even if the ship takes serious damage and loses the 4 unobstructed fighters, the Ihtiman can still launch fighter sorties afterwards (via abstracted "magic" on the map UI). Finally, for those interested, here are the files for the Fungi, Shadrack, Meshach, and Abednego. Bootcha fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Dec 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
What is the purpose of a flagship? What does it contribute to the cause?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 01:06
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:What is the purpose of a flagship? What does it contribute to the cause? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
But could it be a Skylark?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:But could it be a Skylark? Technically, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
I would imagine there is utility to having your flagship not be something that can be blown away by a shot down nuke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 05:17
|
|
|
Sseth mentioned it in his video but you can make you flagship a tiny ship with one engine and park it I the desert and then forget about it if you really want. I kind of like needing to escort a ship northwards myself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 06:39
|
|
|
Two more for the heck of it: The Basegi E (E for "Extended" range):  Forgoing the slat armor on the sides, the "E" adds one more large fuel tank to supplement the job it will do 98% of the time: Extend the flight range of the flagship. The failure to intercept incoming missiles is harsher. The Baazar:  While both a cruise missile platform and missile defense platform, it still respectfully accomplishes its main task as a Fleet Tender fuel tanker. 16 SPRINT missiles split between the port and starboard, there's enough for 4 cruise missile interceptions per side. And 7 A-100s ensure your long range response is definitive. However, it does burn fuel more than twice the other proposed fleet tenders, at nearly 3 times the cost. "When arriving at any theatre, there very few ships that cause quite the stir amongst the locals and the garrisoned soldiers than the Baazar. Like a wandering caravan setting up shop, its wares are laid out plainly for all to see, and much like a wandering caravan, it is armed to keep those wares secure. It is a merchant of death, woe to its target customers."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 07:11
|
|
|
Welcome back, Phrosphor. If you want an alternate name for your tanker, how about Najm Albahr, which google tells me is Arabic for starfish? Is there any particular reason why many people make very vertical tankers rather than square or more horizontally-aligned ones? I'm guessing it's mostly to make them a bit harder for bombers to hit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 07:35
|
|
|
I think mostly it looks oddly cool. Oh yeah, not very important but a lot, a very large lot, of names for the cities are real names, almost all I think, I think the only made up one is Imgur, and Ur is pronounced with a U as the sound for the U in "hue", that's the case for most of the Mesopotamian names there, I think the Semitic ones use our U sound in general, as do the Central Asian ones. I am deeply grateful the game doesn't use š because hearing "karkemiss" and "kiss" would kill me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 07:41
|
|
|
Oh jeez, I had a thought of a good/bad idea about flagship tenders... One more post tomorrow with suggestions, then I'm done, barring Phrosphor asking for a specific thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 11:18
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:Oh jeez, I had a thought of a good/bad idea about flagship tenders... I'm loving these by the way, thank you for doing them! Crazy Achmed posted:Welcome back, Phrosphor. If you want an alternate name for your tanker, how about Najm Albahr, which google tells me is Arabic for starfish? That's a great suggestion! I used to speak Arabic but sadly I lost it after high school. I'll see if I can get the pronunciation right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 12:20
|
|
|
Okay, for the final round of design suggestions, here's the thought: What if Flagship Tenders are like Cleaner Fish? I present to you the Tiny Tender'ventures! 1) Windchime  Role: Passive Sensors 2) Oracle  Role: Radar/Jammer 3) Shepard  Role: AA/AM Defense 4) Decon  Role: Missile Platform 5) Herald  Role: Targeted Missile Guidance 6) Harvest  Role: Detachable Fuel Tank Okay, so, why? The philosophy of these ships is "Fuel is gold. Time is gold." Many of the tanker ships we've proposed and come up with have not only been massive fuel holders, but also robust secondary role ships. However, those designs come at three costs: The initial purchase, the cost of fuel to keep them topped off and in the air, and the time it takes to fuel them. The third cost is something that we really need to consider for Hard Mode, because towns are going to be a lot more dangerous the longer we stay in them. We usually stay in towns to refuel, and the more fuel a strike group needs to move onto the next town, the longer our stay in that town will be. The longer we stay in a town, the more likely our position will be revealed to the enemy, and the more likely they will rain down long-distance pain upon us. Enough failures to intercept missiles, and we will eventually spiral into a losing screen. So, this little group of munchkins is designed to use the Flagship as their source of fuel (the Harvest aside), ignoring any speed considerations (so long as it remains above 200 kph), and consuming as little fuel as possible as to ensure the Flagship has what it needs to reach its destination. If we took 1 of each of the specialized Tenders (minus the Harvest), their fuel consumption would be 226 tons per 1000km. That is better fuel efficiency than any of the Tanker Tenders I've designed for consideration. If we added that fuel consumption rate to, say, the Ihtiman, the range of that Flagship would drop by 817km, and lose 33 kph of speed. But by using these Tiny Tenders, we've removed the consumption equivalent of 38 slabs, or nearly 5000 tons, of large armor pieces from the Flagship. 3001 tons of required equipment and thrust. And because the Flagship doesn't have to carry this weight literally, it can keep its top speed and its own current consumption rate. The other upside to Tiny Tenders, is the loss of one or all of them stings less than losing a larger Tanker Tender. All of these Tiny Tenders cost 48100 combined. The Tanker Tenders all cost 48025. Certainly the Tanker Tenders cost less up front, but also consider the fuel they carry. Regular Town fuel costs 1.3 per ton, Fuel Depots are 0.8 per ton. The Tanker Tenders have 5850 of fuel storage, the Tiny Tenders only 610. The loss of one of the 2250t Tanker Tenders could potentially cost 2925, while at most all of Tiny Tenders would potentially lose 793. Even if we didn't lose any Tenders, Tiny or Tanker, the Tankers would still require a large investment to keep them in the sky in addition to the Flagship. In a sense, it's much more cost and time efficient for multiple tiny "parasites" leeching off a little bit of fuel, than it is to bring the whole family in for a days-long Denny's Grand Slam buffet. A quick note on the Harvest. The idea of the "detachable fuel tank" is a bit of micro-managing. Ideally, you would wait until the Flagship group can fly on its own to the destination without the tanker, and then send the tanker ahead with just enough fuel to get to the destination to get a head start on refueling. It might be more micro than Phrosphor will want to do, but for those that enjoy the micro, this style lends to faster redeployment of the Flagship group to keep it moving. Finally, every one of these Tiny Tenders can be outfitted easily with escape pods and landing pegs if so desired. The Herald would need longer legs, but that's not really a wallet/design stretch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
Its a little gamey, but currently there is no reason to include crew or escape pods on anything, and any more power than a single 2 mw gen on anything without gun turrets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
Gamey you say?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
When you budget runs out halfway through construction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Gamey you say? I call this one "thwomp".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
It's more boring but I did like some of the changes to modifying starting ships like with the Lightning. Are there any others recommended like upgrading Intrepids or some such?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Intrepid, Paladin, and Gladiator are all good candidates for refit to close their coverage gaps, upgun, etc. Intrepid is a bit awkward because it's a small ship so anything you add to it will put you into the expansion spiral where you need more engines, generators, etc. Paladin and Gladiator derivatives give you more room to play. (Jaguars and the Gepard are also basically Gladiators with different armaments) As for carrier designs... if I'm spending up to 50k on a supercarrier I usually go with one of these designs. Not quite a multi-role but I just love the tanks and runway asymmetry, and the cost is reasonable. Though for efficiency I've yet to beat the pocket carrier that was posted earlier, which in the latest patch with the engine cost increases is just a crumb over 10k. Seems 5k per T-7 is the sweet spot no matter the size.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 02:36
|
|
|
So itn't it a bit of a liability having the bridge really exposed on the carrier in the last video? Yeah, I know it's never meant to see combat, but I assume that since you gave it sprints and CIWS that you are expecting it to get attacked by bombers or cruise missiles - so surely there's a chance that a stray bomb/rocket/etc. could hit the exposed bridge and one-shot the ship?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 04:25
|
|
|
You're right that generally it's better to have the bridge buried or at the bottom, even in a noncombat ship. I don't know about Phrosphor but personally I like upper bridges on carriers to evoke that bridge tower feel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 05:48
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:Okay, for the final round of design suggestions, here's the thought: What if Flagship Tenders are like Cleaner Fish? I love these so much, what a fun little study. I'm tempted to try the whole fleet out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 07:30
|
|
|
During my last run this was my go to all-in-one scout: Don't let it land it if you plan on using the fire control radar though, no sprints or jammers means the only defense it has against planes and missiles is maneuver. Those Tiny Tenders make me wonder what the smallest armed ship could be. MagicBoots fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Dec 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 09:31
|
|
|
MagicBoots posted:Those Tiny Tenders make me wonder what the smallest armed ship could be.  All things considered: Agile, light, cheap, and fast enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 09:57
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:You're right that generally it's better to have the bridge buried or at the bottom, even in a noncombat ship. I don't know about Phrosphor but personally I like upper bridges on carriers to evoke that bridge tower feel. Yeah, the bridge tower look is neat, it's the lack of anything on the left hand side of it that worries me. As much as I'd like to christen this class of carrier the "Weird Horse", maybe there's another horsey name that's more dignified. Hussar, Sipahi, Cataphract? I was hoping to find a list of names for eastern european/central asian cavalry but google isn't much help. When you're planning airtstrikes, does it makes sense to split your carrier off and have it hop over a few hundred km, launch planes, then immediately head back to the main fleet so that anyone tracing the approach vector ends up missile-striking a random patch of desert? Or does the AI have ways of defeating this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 13:09
|
|
|
The AI generally doesn't hunt down the source of air strikes. It may end up chasing planes as radar contacts but will generally not pursue other than nearest city when they lose contact, nor will it missile where they came from. If you want to vector your planes from a different place you can just path them on the dog leg instead of sending out the carrier itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 14:00
|
|
|
Crazy Achmed posted:As much as I'd like to christen this class of carrier the "Weird Horse", maybe there's another horsey name that's more dignified. Hussar, Sipahi, Cataphract? I was hoping to find a list of names for eastern european/central asian cavalry but google isn't much help. An Inconvenience of Llamas
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 14:40
|
|
|
Is it possible to build a supersonic ship? If not what's the fastest a ship can go?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:Is it possible to build a supersonic ship? If not what's the fastest a ship can go? Speed of sound is ~1200km/h which is not difficult to reach. Xzibit supersonic aircraft carrier  edit: to answer your other question the fastest courier shuttle I built in 1.13 went ~2900km/h but relied on lightweight hull that no longer exists, and abusing the "cancel part of the hull but the working component still counts as being attached to the ship, as long as part of it is connected" bug silentsnack fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Dec 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
Here's a suggested heavy assault ship. The Rhino  .seria .png 3x D-80 Molot. I vastly prefer the AK-100 for general use but if you plan on mostly flying against strike groups you want 130mm AP. I think 4x guns is overkill but 2x can be underpowered in big battles, 3x is the perfect amount for me. 6x NK-25 engines for in-combat maneuverability. Not quite a Lightning but for a 4000t ship it can dodge quite well, and can lose several engines and keep flying. Layers both armor and reinforced hull, and sometimes a second layer of armor, without the ugly double-triangle composite armor that's "meta". Should have a similar effect and I've found with 8 engines and 2-3 tiles of ablative I'm often still flying and shooting with half the ship missing. As static engines have to be exposed in 1.14, the ship works best directly below the enemy or 45 degrees below on the shoulders. 4x flare launchers in star pattern. I hate this arrangement and would rather remove launchers from either the top or the bottom, which makes dodging with flares more predictable, but I know Phrosphor prefers the star and it's hardly a cost issue. 4x missiles for demonstration purposes. Suggest to go without to reduce the cost to 39k. To be honest missiles are near-useless. Usually to pick off smaller ships in a bit fight, larger ships resist missiles through prox fuse, 37mm, or sprints. 209 seconds of combat time, but designed for use with a tanker. e: If you want a radio antenna there are slots at the top.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
Couple questions on the game and ship design. 1) Did we ever see what happens in letting the crew freeze? Phrosphor kept talking about keeping morale up for when the consequences hit but I don't recall ever seeing any. 2) Would it be feasible to build a Missile Rammer ship? Basic idea is that the ship is tiny like those tender ships, very quick and cheap. If there is a missile contact the ship detaches from the fleet and intercepts the missile. It then tries to dodge the missile instead of shooting it down. Would that work? Seems like something decent to attach to strike forces that are expecting some missile attacks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
Woof... 300 kph Carrier Flagship... A further Carrier Tanker able to keep up... And a 500 kph missile platform with 5000km range... Phrosphor is asking a lot out of these ships. Lemmie see what I can refine and/or compromise to achieve the design targets and roles...
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
Okay... Starting off with the Flagship... The Bapheus:  We're shaving off 2 T-7's, about 30k in costs, 225 km of ELINT, and adding 18 kph and 700 km range. Also, we're centralizing our token AA/AM defense: 2 57s for reaching further out, and 2 37s for danger close. Finally, we're going to brace the landing legs with something more substantial. 12 T-7s are enough for any one time shock'n'awe operation. Support Carrier/Tanker: The Kayseri  Here, we're replacing a T-7 with a LA-29: Pairs are easier to mentally recall. 14 T-7's and 4 LA-29s for the whole fleet are going to blot out the sun. We've yanked a 37mm, but we've added 2 more Sprints, so this carrier/tanker can reasonably survive 4 cruise missile attacks. Our speed is above 310 kph, so with the lower burn rate it should extend the flagship's range about 500 km. Yeah, the tanks are kinda off in terms of mirrored symmetry, but think of it as a byproduct of asking a tanker to also be a carrier the complement of a Wasp AND reach speeds above 310 kph. We're at the ragged edge of functionality and design. Missile/Tanker Platform: The Trabzon  We're not as fast as the Missile/Tanker prototype (losing 25 kph), but we're breaking the 5k km threshold and tacking on another A-100 for the target of 6 cruise missiles. We're also adding in IRST functionality to better keep an eye on incoming attacks. Fast Missile Platform: The Sinop  IF the 500 kph and 5000 km range is still a priority, then we need to make some compromises. First up, it's only carrying 4 cruise missiles. Second, it's wholly reliant on the Sprints for AA/AM defense. We've literally hit the ceiling here. As a consolation, it's much cheaper. The cost of these three proposals are 165,285 using the Trabzon, and 153,565 with the Sinop. These are an overall savings against the prototype fleet (172,827) of 7,542 and 19,262 respectively. We can add those savings to bolstering the Brawlers in capability and endurance. For the Brawlers, considering the tight squeeze budget squeeze we're in, we can't make 2 ships that are going to roll over Strike Groups by singular lonesome. We need to specialize, again. I present Loch, Stok, And Bahral:    Loch is heavily armored for its weight, and is intended as a light-to-medium-target air superiority ship. Two palash's at the bottom will protect against bad luck in repositioning. Nearly 200 seconds of flight time will give you enough opportunity to swat little targets out of the sky, in order to retreat and (if necessary) bring in the next brother. Stok is the dedicated anti-heavy platform. With (hopefully) no light ships to flank and attack it, the Stok can float at range to avoid missiles and proxfuse attacks, while wailing away at SG ship armor for nearly 6 minutes of combat time. All this firepower is meaningless if it can't operate independently of the flagship. While the prototype Carrier/Tanker can keep up, it is too expensive and fuel hungry for the role of brawler tanker, especially that close to the front line. Bahral simply is a cheaper and more efficient dedicated tanker option for the brawlers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 08:22
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:Okay... Starting off with the Flagship... I'm surprised they didn't make double-decker runways illegal with the changes that have been talked about in recent patches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 11:59
|
|
|
I started a game with 2 wasps modified to carry no armour and all supersonics (both cheaper and lighter than the default) and just picked up another 2 wasps at a shipyard and now it feels a bit unfair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 12:10
|
|
|
Crazy Achmed posted:If you wanted, it looks like you could extend the runways slightly to add the extra 2 T-7s and still have room to expand the lower hull to pack in the ammo in for them? Or would the additional weight end up feature-creeping it to death? It'd be more of a feature creep situation. Being cheaper and longer range is the tradeoff for losing the 2 T-7s and their support modules. So, after extensively testing the likes of the Meshach and the Stok, I've reached the conclusion that cheap, sub-30k ships that can go toe-to-toe with SG ships is not something that is possible with 1.14. The Loch is still extremely viable as a cheaper and more durable Gladiator, as is the Shadrack. But looking at Phrosphor's fleet composition, we really don't have anything that'll stand up to a SG ship's arsenal, even when the SG is damaged by cruise missiles and/or fighter strikes. Being quick enough to avoid ProxFuse, while protected enough to shrug off 37s and 57s (not to mention the luckier 100-130-180 hits), avoiding AP shots, AND costing under 46k, it's really hard to put together a ship proposal that checks all the boxes. Unless we accept that we need to embrace a certain kind of... gaminess. To that end, I present a brawler that can kill a SG and walk away intact: The Gorgan.  Four Malots to batter any armored target, and two CWIS 37s to shoot down missiles and large caliber shells. We are embracing the idea of Slat Armor to its logical end. This ship will trigger HiEx and ProxFuse shots only from enemies, and the heavy hull is spaced out to ensure any ProxFuse hits will not affect the gooey center. Certainly the very bottom is exposed, but this ship isn't meant to attack from above. Paired with a dedicated fuel tanker, this ship is under-budget, fast, heavily armed, and well protected. It is, however sadly, not a pretty ship. And it is gaming the AI into not using AP ammo deliberately. That all being said, it absolutely checks every box asked of it. Further, if we completely embraced the idea that it WILL NOT engage enemies from above, we can actually make it better.  For the loss of 1 kph and 1 extra ton of fuel consumption, we give the Gorgon-E nearly FOUR AND A HALF MINUTES of combat flight time, nearly 300km more range, and an extinguisher in case we get unlucky with a hit from below. Further further, video demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2BTspmqMI8 Bootcha fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Dec 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:It'd be more of a feature creep situation. Being cheaper and longer range is the tradeoff for losing the 2 T-7s and their support modules. These look like Monsters. And you managed to make a spaced armor design look non fugly. Bootcha posted:Okay... Starting off with the Flagship... TheDemon posted:Here's a suggested heavy assault ship. I am looking forward to taking this for a spin. It looks mean and it clearly packs a punch. silentsnack posted:Speed of sound is ~1200km/h which is not difficult to reach. I feel like this would break some sort of Elaat arms proliferation treaty. It feels.. cursed. I love it when people push a game to it's limits and Highfleet begs to be broken with it's ship builder. Bootcha posted:
I want to start a campaign with a hundred of these and swarm everything to death. Dakka fleet go! I wonder if there is a way to get allied ships into a battle and CPU controlled. Crazy Achmed posted:Yeah, the bridge tower look is neat, it's the lack of anything on the left hand side of it that worries me. As much as I'd like to christen this class of carrier the "Weird Horse", maybe there's another horsey name that's more dignified. Hussar, Sipahi, Cataphract? I was hoping to find a list of names for eastern european/central asian cavalry but google isn't much help. I would recommend detaching the carrier to launch and receive. The AI likes to send planes back along the flightpath of incoming attack craft and it can sometimes find you that way. Getting off at angle gives you wiggle room and can extend your deployment a little too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:I started a game with 2 wasps modified to carry no armour and all supersonics (both cheaper and lighter than the default) and just picked up another 2 wasps at a shipyard and now it feels a bit unfair. You think it is unfare until you hear "thermal signature detected", followed by a conga line of missiles and bombers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9B4nmJIslM
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2021 00:41
|
|