What if? Experimentals end ASFs
-
The logic has stayed consistent since my first response. You’ll forgive me for not bothering with your posts anymore.
-
It would be my pleasure to do so.
-
I think that fuel is a mechanic that the game should put more light on. Not only does the speed of the aircraft come into play when responding to a threat, but its ability to sustain a pattern for long periods could shift balance and play. It may be worth it to bomb enemy air fields if fuel had a bigger impact.
-
Fuel really only comes into question with T1 air units.
After that, it is rare to see any air unit with low fuel.For example, ASF have around 18 minutes of fuel.
Perhaps refueling should only be possible with refueling stations rather than a passive ability they regenerate over time?Then airfields would be a little more useful and a slightly higher priority or a strategic target attack.
~ Stryker
-
Airfields were originally a t2 unit and changed to t1 because of fuel
Put it back to t2 and get rid of fuel
-
No, it got changed to t1 for the sake of ease of use. Getting t2 engies to make air staging was annoying, especially since the building costs nearly nothing compared to other t2 structures in the first place.
-
Ease of use was a no use
-
It was a viable tool ever since it got changed to not cost mass to repair air units, really.
-
@ftxcommando said in What if? Experimentals end ASFs:
It was a viable tool ever since it got changed to not cost mass to repair air units, really.
0% mass cost, 6% energy cost in my tests. Free repair.
-
I was saying they were not used when they were t2