Re: Maintenance Formula
I actually increased the size of my fighters to make them fit more with my play style (I'm big on fighters), but the bigger you are the more you cost... in effect I made them slightly bigger, but less effective to produce (& even my large fighters are still no match for a Escort)... actually I have made quite a few PD V escorts for anti-fighter purposes...
If you plan on making fighters have maintenance like ships then I would hope you'd give them XP... As it is I'd love an elite fighter squad... But fighters should only cost maintenance when 'in use' with a very minor (very very, due to few if any uses to cause wear & tear) cost to maintain when just sittign there... I agree with one of the guys below when he suggested fleets at home use less resources in maintenance... Oh another way to give fighters XP would be to consider them extensions of the carrier, though this ides has it's ups & downs...
All in all I do think fighters should have maintance when in active duty or when on a active carrier (aka not sitting at a resupply point), but that they should be figured into the general maintenance cost of the item holding them (fighters away shouldn't use maintenance until they return)... This makes logical sense as it's more realistic in the cost of keeping so many fighters going...
Oh btw my bigest fighters (45k, 4 Meson III, 1 Rocket III, 120 pts shields) in Groups of 50 still get losses of 10 units per 2 cruisers (1 PD V per ship, remaining guns Anti-Protons) in combat, so I don't think fighters are that much of a threat to mid sized or larger vehicles... As is I can build maybe 6 large fighters per turn, I could build a crusier in 2... I need at least 12 fighters to have a even chance (figure I strike first)... that seems pretty even... maybe later on when you use Master Comp 3's & Quantum reactors your Cruiser costs would be worse, but my fighters above cost almost 1000 in minerals to build which means things are pretty darn even...
|
Threaded Mode