Article View: alt.games.starcraft
Article #292119Re: Battlecruiser vs. Carrier
From: Jon
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 01:57
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 01:57
37 lines
2471 bytes
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-mailReferences:
<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