Interceptors in 3.1

Other talk that doesn't fit elsewhere.
This is for General Discussion, not General chat.
Searge-Major
Trained
Trained
Posts: 182
Joined: 10 Sep 2011, 03:36
Location: Great Southern region, Western Australia

Interceptors in 3.1

Post by Searge-Major »

I know that in 3.1 that units will not fire more shots than needed to destroy an enemy unit/building. This is especially noticeable with missile artillery, I have destroyed half a base in a few seconds :D.

However, I just wanted to know, as I haven't been able to test it yet, whether the same applies to vtols, when they are acting independently. In other words, if I put a group of 16 lancer interceptors on patrol, instead of firing often at the same targets, and wasting a lot of ammo, will they optimise themselves to destroy/cause as much damage as possible?

PS. While thinking about this, what about a dedicated anti-air machine-gun weapon? Call it spitfire or something, and have it fire a lot of ammo :twisted: . Maybe have a cannon based variant as well, good against heavy bombers etc.

I was thinking about this because of some recent posts. One of the topics has been locked, please when replying keep your cool, and don't flame. Thank you. :)
I fully realise my input is just another drop in the proverbial bucket. It is my goal to make each drop count.
Top
Cyp
Evitcani
Evitcani
Posts: 784
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 23:35

Re: Interceptors in 3.1

Post by Cyp »

Searge-Major wrote:...

However, I just wanted to know, as I haven't been able to test it yet, whether the same applies to vtols, when they are acting independently. In other words, if I put a group of 16 lancer interceptors on patrol, instead of firing often at the same targets, and wasting a lot of ammo, will they optimise themselves to destroy/cause as much damage as possible?

...
Yes: http://wz2100.net/~cyp/recording-20120203165116.mp4
Top
Searge-Major
Trained
Trained
Posts: 182
Joined: 10 Sep 2011, 03:36
Location: Great Southern region, Western Australia

Re: Interceptors in 3.1

Post by Searge-Major »

Thank you very much. :good:

Can I presume that the same thing would happen to incoming waves of bombers? :Gigakach_01:
Searge-Major wrote:While thinking about this, what about a dedicated anti-air machine-gun weapon? Call it spitfire or something, and have it fire a lot of ammo :twisted: . Maybe have a cannon based variant as well, good against heavy bombers etc.
Can I post these in Ideas/Suggestions? Unless similar things are already being worked on... :ninja:
I fully realise my input is just another drop in the proverbial bucket. It is my goal to make each drop count.
Top
Cyp
Evitcani
Evitcani
Posts: 784
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 23:35

Re: Interceptors in 3.1

Post by Cyp »

Searge-Major wrote:
Thank you very much. :good:

Can I presume that the same thing would happen to incoming waves of bombers? :Gigakach_01:

...
Sort of. Yes, except for not taking splash/burn into account.
Top
Searge-Major
Trained
Trained
Posts: 182
Joined: 10 Sep 2011, 03:36
Location: Great Southern region, Western Australia

Re: Interceptors in 3.1

Post by Searge-Major »

Great, thank you very much. :)
I fully realise my input is just another drop in the proverbial bucket. It is my goal to make each drop count.
Top
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Interceptors in 3.1

Post by Iluvalar »

Searge-Major wrote:
Searge-Major wrote:While thinking about this, what about a dedicated anti-air machine-gun weapon? Call it spitfire or something, and have it fire a lot of ammo :twisted: . Maybe have a cannon based variant as well, good against heavy bombers etc.
Can I post these in Ideas/Suggestions? Unless similar things are already being worked on... :ninja:
You want an anti-personnel AA to fight flying cyborgs ? I dont get it, The AA is already unlocked via mg upgrade and every mg are versatile.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
Top
User avatar
Giani
Regular
Regular
Posts: 804
Joined: 23 Aug 2011, 22:42
Location: Argentina

Re: Interceptors in 3.1

Post by Giani »

"You want an anti-personnel AA to fight flying cyborgs ? I dont get it, The AA is already unlocked via mg upgrade and every mg are versatile."

What he wants is an Air-to-Air weapon.
My maps: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9501
Top
Searge-Major
Trained
Trained
Posts: 182
Joined: 10 Sep 2011, 03:36
Location: Great Southern region, Western Australia

Re: Interceptors in 3.1

Post by Searge-Major »

Illuvalar, the full ideas are here.

What I want is a dedicated Air-to-Air weapon. I know there is Sunburst, but I'm talking something quite a bit different.
I fully realise my input is just another drop in the proverbial bucket. It is my goal to make each drop count.
Top
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Interceptors in 3.1

Post by NoQ »

Not "anti-personnel" but "machinegun", i think he means "high-ROF" (all anti-air weapons are AT anyway).
Top

Return to “Other Talk”