I can't believe it took me this long to think of this...

[Feud]

So, I was playing last night in a Russia vs. Europe match (thindigital watching) and I realized something that I'm sure everyone else has known since day one, but for what ever reason has taken met this long to figure out.

In close battles like that, Atlantic, and Indian Ocean fights I'll always try to mix by air craft. By this I mean that some carriers will launch bombers, some fighters. I just realized that the carriers launching bombers take the same amount of time if I launch one fighter first, then switch to bomber mode. I feel like an idiot.

[Ace Rimmer]

Don't feel too bad. I realized this about 3/4 into my Defcon Career. And it dawned on me when I was a spectator.

[zjoere]

Don't feel too bad. I realized this about 3/4 into my Defcon Career. And it dawned on me when I was a spectator.

you already know when your career is gonna end ?

[DrDeath]

D'oh! I hadn't even thought of that... how thick am I?

[Ace Rimmer]

Don't feel too bad. I realized this about 3/4 into my Defcon Career. And it dawned on me when I was a spectator.

you already know when your career is gonna end ?

Heh, I was implying from the start till now. So no, I don't.

[torig]

Don't feel too bad. I realized this about 3/4 into my Defcon Career. And it dawned on me when I was a spectator.

Technically speaking it's not "as fast as just launching the bomber straight away".
It's true the fighter will be dispatched immediately, after which the 240s countdown begins. There will be only a 1-4s delay, but there is a difference none the less

[/pedantic]

[shinygerbil]

Technically speaking it's not "as fast as just launching the bomber straight away".
It's true the fighter will be dispatched immediately, after which the 240s countdown begins. There will be only a 1-4s delay, but there is a difference none the less

[/pedantic]

Psh. Piffle.

[torig]

Technically speaking it's not "as fast as just launching the bomber straight away".
It's true the fighter will be dispatched immediately, after which the 240s countdown begins. There will be only a 1-4s delay, but there is a difference none the less

[/pedantic]

Psh. Piffle.

Thanks for giving me my new-word-of-the-day
But, since you oppose my statement, let's measure this. You place one carrier next to one of mine. Come defcon 3 you launch a fighter, then a bomber; while I immediately launch a bomber. First bomber to appear wins its owner the Pedantry Price of Outstanding achievement in the field of excellence

[shinygerbil]

PIFFLE I SAY!

No, I agree you're right, but if you're quick (in fact, don't carriers launch fighters automatically in some circumstances?) it only has to be a second or two of difference. Plus, in the next couple of seconds, my fighter has torn your bomber to shreds, and is ready to take on the next one

[Angel of Death]

I just realized that the carriers launching bombers take the same amount of time if I launch one fighter first, then switch to bomber mode.

*Angel goes home to try it*

[Braddock]

Wow, that never occurred to me either.

[Gen. Ripper]

and i always launch bombers....now fighters then the bombers....

although i would think the first 3-6 fighters would be wiped out in seconds.....still....time to try

[thindigital]

well the poor guys navy lasted about 30 seconds so whatver you're doing its working for ya

atm i use fleets of 3 carriers, some are placed near my BB line, some held in reserve, at def 3 my front line carriers launch 1 fighter each to long range and the rest to half range, while my 'reserve' carriers launch a fighter each for protection, and then switch to bombers and launch them parallel to my BB line

had an intersting game vs TM2007NEW last night (him NA me RUSSIA) the naval battle was intense with both of us using plenty of nukes and his micro skills been as good as mine, (nearly )

point being, it was the fact tht i held onto, and managed, my fighters better than he, (something i rarely manage to do) so -

its all about the fighters !! keep naval CAP's in the air at all times and always try to manage your fighters back to base -

(btw TM2007NEW dropped after it became clear tht i had won the naval fight and was about to start scouting him :/ shame cus if he stuck around we cuddve had a chat about the great naval battling)

[Tripper]

I just thought of that recently as well. Must be a meme going around.

But instead, I say piffle to frontal naval attack. Had too many battles that start the moment Defcon 3 hits and end up with piles of smouldering hulks far too quickly. My new plan is to deploy in my own radar range and lure the unsuspecting enemy navy into a meatgrinder.

Hmm. Maybe shouldn't have given that away - but I never play under this name anyway. And I'm off all weekend and yous will all have forgotten by Monday

Cheers, Tripper

Edit - I also agree that scrambled fighters tend to die without making much of a contribution. Better to launch them backwards so they're still alive when the enemy comes into radar range ....

[Hyperion]

Fighters are renewable and a very good long range attack weapon...in swarms that is, you just need to pick your targets carefully. Fighters are grunts...what would be the point in flying them backwards? when what they're meant for is scouting/bomber defence/swarm attacks, they also have a much smaller combat range than bombers (which should be flown backwards from an approaching enemy fleet).

Question: Do naval units (Battleship) prioritize targets as silos do? i.e. will they target a bomber if it enters their combat range rather than the fighter they were already targeting?