Value of Fighters - Page 2

Drake · #11 February 13th, 2001, 04:51 AM

quote:
Originally posted by raynor:
Over a period of 12 turns, the maintenance on that ship bumps its cost up above the cost of the fighters.

You could always set your ship maintenance to zero and ignore using fighters completely...

Besides, if you really want to hurt them from a maintenance perspective, use engine overloading weapons on their ships and just leave them there if they don't have repair components or self-destructs and are in your territory. *evil grin*

-Drake

Aussie Gamer · #12 February 13th, 2001, 06:59 AM

I love using fighters, they rock.

But if you run a group of fighters into a minefield they don't Last long.

I run into a minefield of four mines, a "friend" put it there, and I lost all 21 fighters. Only one mine was used up. That's an ouch!!!

So for every attack there's a good defence..

Tomgs · #13 February 13th, 2001, 10:33 AM

quote:
Originally posted by raynor:
In general, I agree with you. But because fighters don't pay maintenance, I wonder if it might not be a worthwhile sacrifice to lose tons and tons of fighters against point defence cannons rather than pay the maintenance on a fleet of ships.

Well I would worry about that if maintaince ever slowed down my building but it doesn't unless I am building stellar manipulation and then if I blow up your star all your fighter go away anyway

. The truth is if you build a good infrastructure maintaince is non existant because you are bringing in more minerals than you spend anyway. If I didn't build ships at every planet that wasn't building facilities the minerals would just be wasted and lost anyway so the maintaince is a plus because at least my minerals are useful.

raynor · #14 February 13th, 2001, 11:05 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Tomgs:
Well I would worry about that if maintaince ever slowed down my building but it doesn't unless I am building stellar manipulation and then if I blow up your star all your fighter go away anyway . The truth is if you build a good infrastructure maintaince is non existant because you are bringing in more minerals than you spend anyway. If I didn't build ships at every planet that wasn't building facilities the minerals would just be wasted and lost anyway so the maintaince is a plus because at least my minerals are useful.

Uh, well... if you're achieving the kind of infrastructure sufficient to compete in the TG tournament, well, yeah, I think you probably have more than enough minerals coming it not to worry about maintenance too much. Man! Almost 300 M score in a small galaxy. And Geoschmo at 60 M *without* ringworlds. How much of their score is resources and how much is ships?

Speaking of infrastructure.. I never ever bothered to research computers to get the Robotoid factories on up. Against the current AI, there wasn't any need. Hopefully, I'll do more than just scratch the surface of the game and be afraid for my life later this week with the new patch.

Just to set the record straight. The main game I used fighters was a high bonus game in which I was surrounded on all sides by major empires and at war with one of them from the beginning of the game. By about turn 70, I still just had one system and had only 10% the resource production of the #1 empire--and that was *after* you figured in a 20% trade tready with the #2 empire. So, I had a real problem with NO infrastructure. Fighters were the only thing that kept me alive. The AI wasn't sending very many ships. But the ships it did send were BIG and had the latest tech. Fortunately, you would be surprised at what 500-800 fighters can do on defence. Oh, and I did eventually win that game.