🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: alt.games.starcraft
Article #292119

Re: Battlecruiser vs. Carrier

#292119
From: Jon
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 01:57
37 lines
2471 bytes
On May 17, 7:51 am, "Luc The Perverse"
<sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote:
> "Spyderizer" <n....@spam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f2h88r$7c4$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> > From what I recall, moving doesn't have any effect once the yamato canon
> > starts charging, the game mechanics will guide the shot to its target
> > regardless of position. I'm not sure if that's still the case if you use
> > something like recall or the canals.
>
> Pfft!  I wouldn't consider recall as a viable strategy for evading yamato
> unless you had OverWind micro skills.
>
> Besides - such a test would be easy to setup.
>
> Interceptors will not engage if a carrier is given a flee command.
>
> And BCs are stronger than Carriers - but the carrier itself has to be
> targets.  If the BC fucks around and shoots the interceptors while the other
> player churns out more of them then he is hosed.   . . . Um . . IIRC.
>
> It would be easy to setup a test.
>
> So someone less lazy than me go do it
>
> --
> LTP
>
> :)

Thanks guys.
That's pretty much what I thought the result would be.
Unfortunately, the only time we tested BC vs. Car was a direct
assault, during which the BC would obviously win.
My friend is not available to test his hit-and-run theory. If he does
in fact have such awesome control.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1179453466.827935.227160@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
Path: mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
References: <1179387227.008384.71360@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <f2h88r$7c4$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <5p6uh4-ebd.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Jon <dini...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.games.starcraft
Subject: Re: Battlecruiser vs. Carrier
Date: 17 May 2007 18:57:46 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <1179453466.827935.227160@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
References: <1179387227.008384.71360@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>   <f2h88r$7c4$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>   <5p6uh4-ebd.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.31.44.28
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1179453478 7388 127.0.0.1 (18 May 2007 01:57:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 01:57:58 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <5p6uh4-ebd.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=75.31.44.28;   posting-account=ZJZGyw0AAACLSb3IdXr-CnxUTETTEfZx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit