Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.

Moderator: Oberlus

Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Message
Author
Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#16 Post by Magnate »

Ophiuchus wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:36 pm
Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:51 amit's been discussed before but I'd welcome a recap of dev views:

Unarmed ships (which in this context means those with no weapons, fighters or troops) should be ignored for targeting purposes, by armed ships and planets. Just like incapacitated planets are ignored.
Troop part costs almost nothing even in early game.
Ok, but that's fixable. Arguably troop pods are too cheap - but even if they're not and they stay cheap, I somehow feel that troop chaff are much more valid targets!!

Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#17 Post by Magnate »

Ophiuchus wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:04 pm
Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:19 pmMy objection to arcs hitting fighters is one of balance, not immersion.
Why not spam interceptors?
Indeed I now have to do that, and it shows that the supposed counter to chaff just creates more chaff. Definitely now how we want the game to evolve, surely?

Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#18 Post by Magnate »

Ophiuchus wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:31 pm
ThinkSome wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:13 pmYes, it would discourage unshielded chaff in late game, when field repair and upgraded ARCs are available. The dry dock change would discourage chaff in early game. Repairing only one ship/turn could be balalanced by

1) building more drydocks at the same shipyard (and thus you sink PP into drydocks instead of chaff)
2) Some drydock research upgrades (repair rate?)
I think we would rather remove drydock repair completely than doing the repair-a-single-ship thing.
I think the repair mechanic could do with some love. I quite like Thinksome's idea of a research line for improving shipyard repair (as opposed to in-space repair, which we already have). You could have a line of buildings that repair more, or just upgrades to the drydock, up to full repair in a single turn - or in fact in zero turns, as you arrive. He's right that it would reduce chaff.

I think out of respect to Oberlus (whose long reply I will reply to after I've done my turn), I should state at this point that I have come round to the idea that chaff simply needs discouraging, not forbidding entirely. So part of my problem with arc disruptors is that they *encourage* chaff (see the earlier post about why don't I spam interceptors). Things that gently discourage chaff but don't forbid it - like increasing the cost of hulls relative to parts, or limiting repair, or increasing upkeep (which we already have), are better than outright forbidding. Much as I would still like targeting priorities, I accept that they aren't coming any time soon and yes it is always about a bit of modelling...

Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#19 Post by Magnate »

Ophiuchus wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:30 pmThe main problem is my opinion not that the game changed, but that the knowledge how the game works increased/it is more necessary to be efficient in multiplayer than in single-player games. The efficient way was always stochastic modelling. Or did you mean the modeling got more complex? I think the base i still the same.
Yes, for me it's simply that the mental modelling is now too complex to be fun, it's just frustrating. Combined with the loss of immersion it tips the balance for me. But I agree that my preferences for limiting modelling or for immersion are not important design drivers!
Anyway some more things about arc disruptors, the counters are shields and fighter-chaff.
Yes. The latter is a really unfortunate side effect, IMO not desirable at all.
Researching arcs is also a complete different research tree - building plasma weapons is usually more effective than arc disruptors (depending on your and your enemy empires). So if your main investments can wait until plasma, arcs are probably a huge waste. Also the main line gives you access to great fighters if you want to upgrade your investments. And if you get good pilots forget about arcs as well.
Yes, I agree that these trade offs are all indicative of good design. With Oberlus's proposed change to shield prices, I think it is ok. And I have always found interceptors pointless, since flak cannons do the same job and don't get destroyed on round 2 or use an internal slot, so perhaps fighter chaff is bearable (and certainly doesn't break immersion for me in the way that fake warships does).

I do have a question about interceptors though, which may be a bug. I've noticed that Oberlus's fleet of 4 carriers, each of which carries eight interceptors, launches precisely twenty interceptors on round 2 - five per ship. How can it be five? If he has one launch bay it should be four (one full interceptor bay as per Pedia), and if he has two it should be all eight. What's happening?

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#20 Post by Ophiuchus »

Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:37 am
Ophiuchus wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:36 pm
Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:51 amit's been discussed before but I'd welcome a recap of dev views:

Unarmed ships (which in this context means those with no weapons, fighters or troops) should be ignored for targeting purposes, by armed ships and planets. Just like incapacitated planets are ignored.
Troop part costs almost nothing even in early game.
Ok, but that's fixable. Arguably troop pods are too cheap - but even if they're not and they stay cheap, I somehow feel that troop chaff are much more valid targets!!
We can also add a low-damage weapon for 1 PP and you will never encounter chaff.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#21 Post by Magnate »

Ophiuchus wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:56 amWe can also add a low-damage weapon for 1 PP and you will never encounter chaff.
That would make a lot of difference to me! It would also be useful against bombers.

Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#22 Post by Magnate »

Oberlus wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 12:55 amLate game we have medium (Sentient) to huge (Titanic, Solar) hulls. Sentient are not the way to go. The survival rate for bigger (sturdier) hulls makes the the right choice when both sides have similar PP investment, because they can repair. Cloaked ones do not work once they are not cloaked (another thing to fix, there is a thread around). Faster ones (Solar) are currently too expensive, but even if their cost is downed, as long as it is not too cheap compared to slower but tougher hulls, they are still weaker for the same price. Not the right choice to hold on a chokepoint.
Yes, solars are for offence, like all the fast energy hulls. Titanics and logistics facilitators for defence (or HAHs earlier on).

I do totally agree that the Sentient hull is underpowered for the research investment it requires. But cloaking is essentially not quite right yet - one free combat round is not enough (and you only get that if AGGRESSIVE_SHIPS_VISIBLE is off). IMO the thing to change is global detection strength. Make it local to each ship or building, and suddenly cloakers are more worthwhile - you can explicitly target the detectors. Longer term I'd like to see more nuance in cloaked combat (instead of just visible / not visible), like maybe stealth% chance to avoid a hit (modified by whatevs). But much as I love this kind of design discussion, we've wandered off topic!
I do agree with you in that these differences bring in gameplay diversity even end game. But still I want more to improve replayability.
So I'd like it to be less no-brainer to get the bigger hulls, more depending on circumstances, more tactical and strategic diversity. One way to get that is to keep smaller (earlier) hulls to have a role late game (chaff among others). Another way is to have some rock-paper-scissors in the weapons&defences tactics: you build many small warships or chaff? I use multishot weapons (Arcs). You mount multishot weapons? I build shielded ships. Many shielded ships? Take this bombers and suffer. Many bombers? Enjoy this flaks and interceptors. Etc.

I agree FreeOrion can be fun without chaff and Arcs. I just find it better with chaff and arcs, more fun for the mix.

I don't know why I get so involved in defending my vision of the game, even more when game has already many ways to adjust to different visions and tastes (like disabling chaff viability, adjusting cost or available targets of weapons, etc.). It's like I want to convince you to have the same vision and taste I have.

But I am not offended! At all!
Thank you, and I'm sorry I took a little offence and gave some in return. I too like the configurability of FO, and now you've pointed out that I can increase hull costs to my heart's content (and swaq has pointed out that I can *reduce* part costs too!), I can shut up about chaff because I can discourage it in several ways. I love Ophiuchus's idea of a 1PP weapon, that would be ideal. I will get my head around spamming interceptors and see how it plays.
So let me deal with your fake weapons point. For me it is too hard to pretend that they're fake weapons and mentally justify them as valid targets. But if FO evolves to the point where I genuinely cannot tell what weapons are on a ship until I engage it (unless I have invested a LOT in scanning techs), then I would be perfectly happy with that.
Oh, man! I see your point now! I would say like "WTF fake weapons? I can see them in the galaxy map!" :lol:
Hmmm... I guess this should be addressed somehow...
Yes, but it's not trivial - I think it's part of a much bigger fog-of-war effort (which incidentally also includes getting cloaking/stealth right). I'd really quite like to build and test a version where ships have no info at all, apart from maybe the hull type. Then we could debate how the information is acquired and represented (to stop us all taking notes) after the ship is encountered.
Then, you were not against comsats (as chaff) at game fourth? You did not comment anything about not liking them until later? I guess you changed your mind about that afterwards? Never mind.
Well, that fourth game was the first time I tried the chaff strategy. Much as I enjoyed winning (who doesn't), it did feel a bit dirty (which is perhaps why I was stung by your words) and I did agree in the fifth game that it would be better if it wasn't a viable strategy. But I was honest enough to know that I would not be able to keep a promise not to use it, so I said so. I'm glad it's been thought about, and I'm glad we're debating how to make it slightly less dominant as a strategy. I'm sorry (to all) that my ranting about immersion was a bit of a distraction from the design debate.
Well, here I do take some offense, from the "poorly balanced" part (the other part I understand it, if you felt offended by my wrong memories and rash words about exploiting comsats). I did try my best helping Ophiuchus to find a nice balance, running spreadsheets with different hulls, weapons and fleets compositions pitched against each other, to find out the stats that are good, average and bad depending, instead of just mostly good or mostly bad. Right now there is no sign or prove that they are poorly balanced. You, at least, have not commented any (but I keep misunderstanding you, so I can't tell). If you think they should cost more or less, or do more or less damage, make your suggestions.
I have - my suggestion is that they should not be able to target all three of ships, fighters and planets. I agree with you that the right one to take away is planets (from a realism point of view - but see below for the primacy of balance over immersion). I'm sorry for my rash criticisms - I appreciate the effort that you and the others put into improving the game. I will comment on costs and damage numbers as I gain more experience with them. I did like Thinksome's suggestion of the upgrades being to shots rather than damage, but I see the reply that this has been debated and rejected already so I'll leave it. If you want more options for replayability, we could always have both upgrade paths!
The surprise, I assumed it from your recent complain about chaff when ThinkSome send a scout and my fleet was revealed, and then you retreated until building your own share of chaff (which I dunno if it is the best strategy when I have so many Arcs...). If this wasn't a surprise and everything is following your plan, OK!
Ah, I see another subtle misunderstanding. In the sense you mean, I was a bit surprised - I had not thought you would have a fleet composed solely of chaff, arcs and fighters. Not that there's anything wrong with you doing so, so I wasn't surprised in that (strategic) sense. My surprise was simply because I hadn't done enough thinking about what you were doing, that's all.
I said I take some offense, but not serious one, I'm not asking for apologies, I understand I offended you (which I regret). So...
Are we OK?
We certainly are - you don't have to ask for an apology, I know when I've overdone the criticism and happy to apologise up front.
I am disadvantaged but not surprised!
You might not be aware yet that I am the most disadvantaged empire by far in the whole galaxy: you got trapped (and made your way out) with some natives to conquer. I just got nothing to colonize: 1 good planet, 2 adeq. (you control them now), 3 poor, and 2 barren for Exobots. Not a single native except those 57 you stole from me. In 7 hops around my HW! Well, plus the system owned by o01eg that has 1 more adeq. I think I could be doing better in your position than in mine. And that seems to be true judging by your huge fleet compared to mine, despite I've been doing little else in last 25 turns apart from pumping ships out.
If you don't believe me, check out Empires window and tell me what PP and RP you see for my empire. Is it bigger than yours by any chance?
I'm not playing because any prospects of victory. I know since turn 25 I have lost. Maybe my teammates can do something. Until swaq open the floodgates.
So no, you are NOT disadvantaged when compared to me, quite the opposite I would say (I still need to see your space to really know).
Again, sorry for being unclear - I didn't mean compared with you. I agree that your starting position is worse than mine, or indeed anyone else's. My disadvantage is narrow tolerance, which is a much bigger malus in a small galaxy when nearby colonisables matter a lot more. And relative to my team-mates I have the worst starting position. But I agree that it's better than yours. I suspect you would have played my position better than I have - I'm a bit out of practice and you would have taken more care (I made a few strategic errors in what to colonise/research/build early on).

My other disadvantage is that I'm now facing two enemies, while Hyperant faces the other two. We hope our team-mates are going to get off their butts and help, any year now!
I was thoroughly trounced by L29Ah (it was a tactical decision to deny him access to my pilots
That he didn't like it, not being able to grab your species because you conceded and your populations just poof out. He asked to disable that option: if a player concedes, his planets and species remain. Now you have to do evacuation or something before conceding.
Yes, as with comsats I was a big supporter of that change - I had suggested it myself before I (ab)used it!
and the arc was a response to that
Nope. Ophiuchus had been working on that for a long time. It arouse as an answer to comsat spam. The comsat spam got a simpler an faster fix: up its cost (there was some reluctance to it for the bad effect on troop drops, but it got fixed when Ophiuchus came with the idea of upping cost along with internal slots, simple but brilliant). But Arcs still had its own appeal for a new tactic: multishot anti-ship weapon, good against many small warships, bad against big shielded ships. There was no other weapon covering that niche. So it made its way into the game even when chaff (unarmed ships) could be solved in other ways.
Sure, I can totally see the logic of that. Again we are finding disagreement where there is none - I just meant arcs were a response to chaff, not specifically to mobile chaff. It frustrates me that they now encourage interceptor chaff, but hey there is a simple solution to that - make them target ships and planets but not fighters. I know I said earlier that targeting planets not fighters would be better, for me that was immersion-related, and I think discouraging interceptor spam is more important, so I'd suggest reversing the solution.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#23 Post by Oberlus »

Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:49 am I did like Thinksome's suggestion of the upgrades being to shots rather than damage, but I see the reply that this has been debated and rejected already so I'll leave it. If you want more options for replayability, we could always have both upgrade paths!
No, we can't unless we make Arcs non-upgradable. They are currently like fighters: the ones you mount early game will be good end game once the tech are researched. That makes them different than regular single-shot weapons that get outdated during time. To be able to upgrade the fire rate they should be like single-shot, with several tiers that get obsolete. Otherwise they are either OP or UP, impossible to balance because you can't up so much the total damage output for a weapon with constant cost.
Trust me, we put A LOT of thinking into all this, for weeks. It would be nice if you (anyone) could review such discussions before making suggestions that if not answered could let you with the wrong idea that we are ignoring your good ideas, but that to be answered forces the others to repeat long explanations and waste time that we could be using on something new.
Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:49 am We hope our team-mates are going to get off their butts and help, any year now!
:lol:
Yeah, right?
ThinkSome is thinking about it. What's swaq's excuse? :twisted:
Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:49 am they now encourage interceptor chaff, but hey there is a simple solution to that - make them target ships and planets but not fighters. I know I said earlier that targeting planets not fighters would be better, for me that was immersion-related, and I think discouraging interceptor spam is more important, so I'd suggest reversing the solution.
All this is very interesting (important) to discuss.
Let me clear out my thoughts aloud.

Interceptors are good to kill other fighters (same role than flak: PD) and to smokescreen your own bombers/fighters against enemy PD. I find those roles legit.
With Arcs in play, interceptors are also good at soaking Arc damage to protect your small, unshielded ships. I find this legit also.
I think bringing in interceptors for the sole purpose of smokescreening your other small ships against an enemy that has Arcs but doesn't have fighters is sensible. It helps the Arcs be less powerful against empires that focused on organic hull line. I think that might actually be a necessity for balance purposes.
I don't see what's the problem with interceptor chaff when it is so focused against too specific kinds of weapons: PD and multishot.

Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#24 Post by Magnate »

Oberlus wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:13 am
Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:49 am I did like Thinksome's suggestion of the upgrades being to shots rather than damage, but I see the reply that this has been debated and rejected already so I'll leave it. If you want more options for replayability, we could always have both upgrade paths!
No, we can't unless we make Arcs non-upgradable. They are currently like fighters: the ones you mount early game will be good end game once the tech are researched. That makes them different than regular single-shot weapons that get outdated during time. To be able to upgrade the fire rate they should be like single-shot, with several tiers that get obsolete. Otherwise they are either OP or UP, impossible to balance because you can't up so much the total damage output for a weapon with constant cost.
Trust me, we put A LOT of thinking into all this, for weeks. It would be nice if you (anyone) could review such discussions before making suggestions that if not answered could let you with the wrong idea that we are ignoring your good ideas, but that to be answered forces the others to repeat long explanations and waste time that we could be using on something new.
Point taken, I'm sorry for my laziness. I'm afraid these forums are too crowded to reward time spent looking for them. I will always follow a link if given one, but I realise that's putting the burden on others. Maybe threads which turn into important design debates could be moved into a very low-traffic (maybe restricted?) subforum so that people needing to catch up can find them more easily? Or we should make more use of the wiki to have articles on important design topics which link to (and summarise) the discussions. I'd be happy to help with this - I'm much better at wiki editing than at coding.
Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:49 am they now encourage interceptor chaff, but hey there is a simple solution to that - make them target ships and planets but not fighters. I know I said earlier that targeting planets not fighters would be better, for me that was immersion-related, and I think discouraging interceptor spam is more important, so I'd suggest reversing the solution.
All this is very interesting (important) to discuss.
Let me clear out my thoughts aloud.

Interceptors are good to kill other fighters (same role than flak: PD) and to smokescreen your own bombers/fighters against enemy PD. I find those roles legit.
With Arcs in play, interceptors are also good at soaking Arc damage to protect your small, unshielded ships. I find this legit also.
I think bringing in interceptors for the sole purpose of smokescreening your other small ships against an enemy that has Arcs but doesn't have fighters is sensible. It helps the Arcs be less powerful against empires that focused on organic hull line. I think that might actually be a necessity for balance purposes.
I don't see what's the problem with interceptor chaff when it is so focused against too specific kinds of weapons: PD and multishot.
Ok, if interceptors as arc fodder is a valid design choice, then I agree nothing needs changing for that. (I'd still like to see arcs not attack planets but that's just gravy.)

If the desire to reduce (not forbid) chaff is higher, then we could consider not allowing arcs to hit them. But as I said earlier, I have never seen the point of interceptors before and always built flaks, so I'm actually interested to experiment further.

Btw what is up with numbers of interceptors? If it has gone up to 5 per bay, how come your ships carry eight and not ten?

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#25 Post by Oberlus »

Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:48 amI will always follow a link if given one
This one: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11473&p=98784&hili ... tor#p98784
I found it by searching for Arc Disruptor in topics name :wink: :twisted:
Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:48 am Btw what is up with numbers of interceptors? If it has gone up to 5 per bay, how come your ships carry eight and not ten?
Interceptors start at 3 units per hangar. Each upgrade increases that by 1 (so Death Ray fighters give you 6 interceptor per hangar). Launch bay always can launch the number of interceptors per hangar (so 2 hangars need 2 launch bays no matter tech level).

Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#26 Post by Magnate »

Oberlus wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 12:50 pm
Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:48 amI will always follow a link if given one
This one: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11473&p=98784&hili ... tor#p98784
I found it by searching for Arc Disruptor in topics name :wink: :twisted:
Thanks, will read while we wait for Dany to turn ;-)
Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:48 am Btw what is up with numbers of interceptors? If it has gone up to 5 per bay, how come your ships carry eight and not ten?
Interceptors start at 3 units per hangar. Each upgrade increases that by 1 (so Death Ray fighters give you 6 interceptor per hangar). Launch bay always can launch the number of interceptors per hangar (so 2 hangars need 2 launch bays no matter tech level).
Then why do your ships show on my scanners as carrying eight interceptors? Surely it should say five or ten? This looks like the old bug of not seeing your upgrades, but (i) that setting is off, and (ii) I have researched plasma fighters myself, so I would see the right number anyway.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#27 Post by Oberlus »

Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:16 pm Then why do your ships show on my scanners as carrying eight interceptors?
Basic interceptors: 3 per hangar (as I said above). Laser 4 per hangar. So 2 hangar, 8 interceptors. I'm laser level.

Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#28 Post by Magnate »

Oberlus wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:05 pm
Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:16 pm Then why do your ships show on my scanners as carrying eight interceptors?
Basic interceptors: 3 per hangar (as I said above). Laser 4 per hangar. So 2 hangar, 8 interceptors. I'm laser level.
Then how come you're launching five per ship on round 2 instead of four per ship? Check our combat logs - that's surely a bug?

EDIT: I meant five per ship on round 1, not round 2.
Last edited by Magnate on Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#29 Post by Ophiuchus »

Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:24 pm
Oberlus wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:05 pm
Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:16 pm Then why do your ships show on my scanners as carrying eight interceptors?
Basic interceptors: 3 per hangar (as I said above). Laser 4 per hangar. So 2 hangar, 8 interceptors. I'm laser level.
Then how come you're launching five per ship on round 2 instead of four per ship? Check our combat logs - that's surely a bug?
Yes, a bug. Please note some turn when this happens, so we can check in the savefiles later.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#30 Post by Ophiuchus »

Magnate wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:48 amBut as I said earlier, I have never seen the point of interceptors before and always built flaks, so I'm actually interested to experiment further.
Check also differences concerning pilot skill.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Post Reply