Usefulness of the bigger mounts

[Suicide Junkie]

So your actually less vulnerable with the bigger mounts. It is like adding armor to your weapons.

More hitpoints mean they are more likely to be hit and thus die first.

However, if the enemy delivers a few thousand damage to drain your shields and armor, a few extra hitpoints on a gun is nothing. Besides, your crew won't have any time to think about the ramifications of losing the guns before they are reduced to their component atoms by the rest of the volley...

[tesco samoa]

The key is the range....

[Fyron]

Some of you guys are comparing apples and oranges... the original post was about ship mounts, which have no range bonuses at all!

[Wardad]

Hey, I just checked the game again and

APB mineral cost is proportional to the increase in Kt size.

So the bigger mounts do more damage for less cost. (ie. less maintenance).

[Paul1980au]

3 factors

Maintence
Range
Damage
(actually a 4th one ) size.

[Atrocities]

Mounts can add a lot of flavor to a game, but be careful, mounts can also ruin a game.

[Alneyan]

The cost is not altered by using mounts, if you keep using the same amount of kt for your weapons. (Say, with 180kt for weapons, you can have either 6 normal APB or 2 massive mounted APB)
- 6 normal APB cost 400 minerals each, so 2,400 minerals in the end
- 2 massive mounted APB cost 1200 minerals each, so once again 2,400 minerals.

The only changes of the *ship* (and ship only, it does without saying that base or units mounts are compulsory. But ship mounts do NOT give range bonuses or accuracy bonuses in the vanilla game) mounts is an increase in firepower and having less, but bigger and slightly stronger weapons. For the sake of completeness, mounts also increase supply usage a tad, if you compare the same amount of kt. But obviously, as SJ pointed out, if your ship is destroyed in a single turn, losing weapons earlier isn't going to change much.