Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:29 pm
No.
Free Allegiance Forums
Space battles since 2000
https://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/
Gunships suggestion
Page 4 of 4
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:30 pm
They are good against SBs, most SBs will get eyed around the 3K-2K mark, plenty of time to get into position and whack 'em with SCs.
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:41 pm
Anyway, sidetrack...
if the price is going to remain at 250 or even 100 per ship, give it a bit tougher hull, or at least better shields. Something.
if the price is going to remain at 250 or even 100 per ship, give it a bit tougher hull, or at least better shields. Something.
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:44 pm
I know, how about a free small ship that sort of works in concert with the GS. It has a special sort of gun that can repair the GSs hull and... Oh wait...Padre wrote:QUOTE (Padre @ Jan 17 2009, 07:41 PM) Anyway, sidetrack...
if the price is going to remain at 250 or even 100 per ship, give it a bit tougher hull, or at least better shields. Something.
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Rav, stop talking about Guardians. We all know no one flys those things
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:06 pm
I wish Gunships were more expensive. They're still much too cheap for their usefulness. Nans unfortunately exponentially increase their power, you might say three Enh Figs could defeat a turreted Gunship, but give that GS one nan and they're going to have a @#(! heap of trouble now.
Make 'em 500 at least, they do mount SkyCaps after all.
Make 'em 500 at least, they do mount SkyCaps after all.
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:48 am
I guess I'm the only one old enough to remember when GS were basic garr with bombers as a requirement. 
IIRC(And I probably don't), the reason they were moved to starbase was that in the time, SY was what was used to end games 90% of the time(Caps were a bit stronger). Since devs and cruisers was what all teams went for, bombers weren't needed and usually bypassed. I think they were moved to starbase to increase the odds of having them bought . Also, in those days, there was very little reason to buy a starbase. There were no tp2(it was less interesting to buy tp1) and there were no aleph res/XRM(less interesting to buy heavy bombers). Moving GS to starbase was a nice way to make it more usefull in those times(Particularly since most teams had Sc2/3).
I think that Starbase would lose some of its flavour without GS in it and I fear we'd see GS every games if they could be rushed just after bombers(That's a 10k price reduction if you don't plan to get a starbase).
IIRC(And I probably don't), the reason they were moved to starbase was that in the time, SY was what was used to end games 90% of the time(Caps were a bit stronger). Since devs and cruisers was what all teams went for, bombers weren't needed and usually bypassed. I think they were moved to starbase to increase the odds of having them bought . Also, in those days, there was very little reason to buy a starbase. There were no tp2(it was less interesting to buy tp1) and there were no aleph res/XRM(less interesting to buy heavy bombers). Moving GS to starbase was a nice way to make it more usefull in those times(Particularly since most teams had Sc2/3).
I think that Starbase would lose some of its flavour without GS in it and I fear we'd see GS every games if they could be rushed just after bombers(That's a 10k price reduction if you don't plan to get a starbase).
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:11 am
Cool. I was pretty sure that's how it was back in the day.Vlymoxyd wrote:QUOTE (Vlymoxyd @ Jan 22 2009, 06:48 AM) I guess I'm the only one old enough to remember when GS were basic garr with bombers as a requirement.