They always seem to get the best combat value/cost rating in almost every design I've tried.
Furthermore they benefit from the military maxim that quantity beats quality. 3 per hangar means 3x bonuses too for pilots/charge/flank etc.
Their only weakness is they don't hit planets. Thus I always now put a gun on those CVs.
The middle bomber type I've never found useful yet. Ship targets only and lower cost effectiveness vs Strikes.
The heavies once in a while seem to rate best and they do have the same targets as guns but then you gotta consider flak/arcs/lances for AA (although I must admit I neglect AA for gunships usually as they seem to go obsolete once carriers take over). The heavies best feature is their concentrated damage, great for punching through... shields. Oh dear... Also a bad feature in that it will waste a lot of points on overkilling small targets like comsats.
So... will the other fighter types be removed in future? Seem to just clutter up the design screen.
Oh forgot the Interceptors. Deservedly so.
Furthermore they benefit from the military maxim that quantity beats quality. 3 per hangar means 3x bonuses too for pilots/charge/flank etc.
Their only weakness is they don't hit planets. Thus I always now put a gun on those CVs.
The middle bomber type I've never found useful yet. Ship targets only and lower cost effectiveness vs Strikes.
The heavies once in a while seem to rate best and they do have the same targets as guns but then you gotta consider flak/arcs/lances for AA (although I must admit I neglect AA for gunships usually as they seem to go obsolete once carriers take over). The heavies best feature is their concentrated damage, great for punching through... shields. Oh dear... Also a bad feature in that it will waste a lot of points on overkilling small targets like comsats.
So... will the other fighter types be removed in future? Seem to just clutter up the design screen.
Oh forgot the Interceptors. Deservedly so.
Statistics: Posted by Atreides — Sun Aug 04, 2024 4:41 pm
