No, I don't think that's debatable at all. WPs should get at least as powerful mounts as bases. If you think about it, a WP could justifiably get MORE powerful mounts than bases although if you set any higher range extensions there may be no place to hide on the combat map.
Anyway, on the surface of a planet you could be using the civilian power grid to boost your available power, you could have intercoolers and other resources connected to but not IN the bunker with the weapons, etc. I have altered WP mounts to be one "size" class less for WPs, in fact. The "large" mount has no size increase, the "huge" mount only a 50 percent increase and the "Massive" mount only a 100 percent increase. So, you can cram more of them in a given size of WP. ANd they also have the same range extension as a base mount of the same class. This makes planets as formidable as they ought to be. Now if only the AI would be smart enough to USE the extended range it would be a real challenge to take on a planet.
Same for satellites, but to a lesser degree. The "large" satellite mount in my tech set has a +1 range boost. And yes, I also include some missile satellites in any group -- these also have at least one PDC each. Balance in weapons and defenses is a good thing.
[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 28 November 2000).]
Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
Threaded Mode