|
|
|
 |

December 15th, 2001, 08:22 PM
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 5,085
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
Well, the problem I had with ramming is the warheads never did anything, i.e. the ship without the warhead did as much damage ramming as the ship WITH the warhead.
Phoenix-D
__________________
Phoenix-D
I am not senile. I just talk to myself because the rest of you don't provide adequate conversation.
- Digger
|

December 15th, 2001, 09:15 PM
|
 |
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,661
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
In my experience the cobalt warheads work. If you put several Typ III on a ship you can do quite a lot of damage! But I always lost the attacking ship even if its destruction potential (of the cobalt warheads) was greater than the target. And the cost of the cobalt warheads is too high. I reduced it to 100 minerals and 200-400 radioactives for level I-III.
|

December 15th, 2001, 09:31 PM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 2,162
Thanks: 2
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
Here's a quick Q: Do destroyed components on the ramming ship count for ramming damage?
__________________
Are we insane yet? Are we insane yet? Aiiieeeeee...
|

December 16th, 2001, 08:50 AM
|
 |
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,661
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
quote: Originally posted by Taqwus:
Here's a quick Q: Do destroyed components on the ramming ship count for ramming damage?
According to my observation (Version 1.49): No.
|

December 16th, 2001, 08:56 PM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 2,162
Thanks: 2
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
Odd, that. Perhaps they should -- well, at a reduced rate (70%? 50%?); armor may be mangled, and weapons non-functional, but a fair bit of the mass might actually remain. Ramming as a Last "Oh heck, we're going to die anyway" move might be a bit more meaningful then. Close-in space combat might be made a bit nastier, then...
__________________
Are we insane yet? Are we insane yet? Aiiieeeeee...
|

December 16th, 2001, 09:48 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 3,070
Thanks: 13
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
|
Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
I had the impression that the ramming damage done was based on hull size, and the components (other than warheads) only affected how much damage the ship could take, not how much it caused.
[ 16 December 2001: Message edited by: capnq ]
__________________
Cap'n Q
"Good morning, Pooh Bear," said Eeyore gloomily. "If it is a good morning," he said. "Which I doubt," said he.
|

December 16th, 2001, 10:31 PM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,451
Thanks: 1
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
quote: Odd, that. Perhaps they should -- well, at a reduced rate (70%? 50%?); armor may be mangled, and weapons non-functional, but a fair bit of the mass might actually remain. Ramming as a Last "Oh heck, we're going to die anyway" move might be a bit more meaningful then. Close-in space combat might be made a bit nastier, then...
I'd reccommend adding the warhead weapon to engines then.
You need movement to ram anyways, and the faster you're going, the harder you will hit!
quote: I had the impression that the ramming damage done was based on hull size, and the components (other than warheads) only affected how much damage the ship could take, not how much it caused
Hitpoints remaining * settings.txt modifier + warhead Ratings.
__________________
Things you want:
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|