Search results

You can't but a Tali only has one type of missile. In 3.6 if you are a Vanguard or smaller 1 missile. Smaller than a Hammerhead 2. Hammerhead 4. 890J more than you carry.

Or blades. Using blades you should be able to slave the top front and chin turrets to the pilot based on what JC said the other week. I rather use blades for point defense though. I have a Tali, love it for its looks and eventual versatility. For now, it isn't really useful.

Thanks for the notice. I was sitting on some store credit, planning on upgrading my Retaliator Base to the full bomber, through a temporary Connie Andro during the Anniversary Sale. Now I have an Andro to Tali CCU sitting in my hangar and don't have to wait forvthe sale. Appreciate it.

Waiting for them in their favorite bar, or staking out their mom or GF/BF is safer than risking your multi-million dollar ship for a lousy 5-10K.

They have to stop in their favorite bar, eventually.

Treat the Idiris as a FARP. The fighters aboard are refueling/rearming, while the rest of the squadron is in space.

Well crap. CIG just gave me a reason to just use the Tali. RSI Mantis, meet the Argos IX. Argos IX eat the RSI Mantis.

I found a use for my Tali after all. Pull me out of quantum, eat a size 9 torp. The Argos IX, for when you care enough to send the very best.

Put this device in a Retaliator rear module, Caterpillar module, Connie, Hammerhead, Polaris or Idiris cargo bay and maybe it makes sense. On this, no sense at all.

For bounty hunting, the keep them from jumping mechanic is useful, pulling ships out of quantum, not so much. A good EMP should accomplish the same task though. All the more reason to not want to take bounties in space.

I can see the idea of keeping people from jumping away from a planet, or base, that mechanic makes sense. The idea of being able to pull someone out of quantum with sensors that are, at best,light speed sensors, with Space being as vast as it is seems a bit much.

It is better than "DAZ soon."

On the other side of the coin you can't have the Star Destroyer run down the blockade runner in the epic scene that started the Star Wars franchise. Or the scene where the Star Destroyers were closing in on the Falcon before it "jumped to light speed" or didn't jump to light speed, depending on...

Yes. Sorry I misread your intention.

You place the thrusters where they work best. For example at the end of moment arms. :)

Only if the thrust (force) does not increase proportionately. F÷m=a. For example, an F-15 has about 1.75 times the mass of an F-16, but has twice the thrust of an F-16 so the F-15 accelerates faster (yes that is overly simplified since it isn't taking into account things such as parasitic drag...

On the other side of the coin you also have economy of scale. Larger fuel lines, water lines, gas lines are more efficeint. Smaller nuclear reactors are less stable and produce significantly less power than just comparing volume. No reason to believe anti-matter or fusion would be any...

You didn't. However if you use actual physics there is no reason a Destroyer shouldn't be faster and more maneuverable than a fighter.

You didn't. However if you use actual physics there is no reason a Destroyer shouldn't be faster and more maneuverable than a fighter. It would be based on design philosophy not size.

It is the only way to make light fighters actually relevant, especially carrier based fighters.