Strategy Articles!

[Stone Mill]

Originally posted by cybersol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
Note: You always want to have 1 or 2 PDCs on your ships no matter what the enemy is currently using, even if they are not using missiles, seekers, and such. But, doing so would leave you very vulnerable to a sudden change of tactics (I have seen many players in PBW fall into such traps). (Imperator Fyron )

Don't you mean to say:
Note: You always want to have 1 or 2 PDCs on your ships no matter what the enemy is currently using, even if they are not using missiles, seekers, and such. Because not doing so would leave you very vulnerable to a sudden change of tactics (I have seen many players in PBW fall into such traps). (Imperator Fyron)

---

Ahhh... yes I do mean to say that. Sorry about the butchery. Edited.

Imperator Fyron, thanks for doing a wonderful job of clarifying capnq's question. That is to what I was referring. Added:

b. If you have a lot of PDCs compared to the number of enemy seekers/fighters, get in close because you can overwhelm their seekers/fighters and take no damage.
c. If you do not have a lot of PDCs compared to the number of enemy seekers/fighters, you can survive by moving out of range of the seekers after firing your weapons. This is also known as "missile dancing". The idea is to make the seekers move up to their maximum range. At that point, they disappear and can do no damage. Use optimal or max range (difficult in simultaneous games).

Krsqk, very nice. I believe Engine destroters may also apply to ship capture. Added:

You might also add that ramming ships are frequently vulnerable to engine destroyers. Ramming ships that don't move don't ram much. They tend to focus on armor for hitpoints, since the attacker's shields are not counted when ramming. Of course, they could still slip a single shield generator on there, but many forget to do this.

Fyron, Good point. Added to Krsqk's submission:

IIRC, ramming drops the attacker's shields to 0. (Imperator Fyron)

[ May 23, 2003, 15:07: Message edited by: Stone Mill ]