First off, keep in mind that gameplay and balance ALWAYS outweigh canonical issues by far.
All of this analysis was done when Val set up the weapons, you know. He did not just pick random numbers out of the blue.
Quote:
I also do not understand the rationale for having the missiles reload in combat. Where would the
reloads come from? By making reload time 35 turns you can counter-balance the effects of
increasing the speed: the fighters then are very effective on the turn they fire, and then have
to rely on direct fire weapons.
|
They would come from the fighters, of course. You did not think a fighter can only carry one missile, did you? Real fighter jets carry lots of missiles on them, not just one. There is no reason space fighters would only be able to carry one missile.
Quote:
Of these weapons, most follow the 10% loss per square of range. The exceptions are the particle
bLaster and Ion bolt, both less than 5%, and the Plasma gun, at 15%
|
I think you are reading the bonus to hit line wrong. All weapons lose 10% accuracy at each range. The ones with bonuses just get a bonus to hit, not a different scale of accuracy loss.
Quote:
|
1. Either eliminate the Particle BLaster or give it much more damage.
|
Do not underestimate the effects of weapon stacking. It is the stacking of lots of PDC fire in unmodded SE4 that makes the PDCs overwhelm missiles and fighters, not their high damage rates.
[ August 11, 2003, 01:21: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]