jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
Chickensalad,
I wouldn't go as far as forcing units with cargo to defend if they are the 'best' unit. Yes, that does limit the utility of loaded missile cruisers a little, but I think it's very logical to assume that ships without cargo in the stack are acting as 'escorts' for the ships that have cargo, regardless of strength, just because a sunk missile cruiser + 4 cruise missiles is a LOT of hammers to lose at once.
I do think, however, that there is almost no point to building stealth destroyers if they do NOT step up to defend while in a stack. I think either (1) Stealth Destroyers should be allowed to defend if an enemy unit enters their square (after all, enemy ships would be able to acquire line-of-sight if they got close enough, no matter how invisible to RADAR/SONAR they may be,) or:
(2) The XML file should be changed so that Destroyers are not obsoleted with Stealth Destroyers, so that an escort-class warship can still be constructed in the Future era.
I personally prefer (1) to (2)....
I wouldn't go as far as forcing units with cargo to defend if they are the 'best' unit. Yes, that does limit the utility of loaded missile cruisers a little, but I think it's very logical to assume that ships without cargo in the stack are acting as 'escorts' for the ships that have cargo, regardless of strength, just because a sunk missile cruiser + 4 cruise missiles is a LOT of hammers to lose at once.
I do think, however, that there is almost no point to building stealth destroyers if they do NOT step up to defend while in a stack. I think either (1) Stealth Destroyers should be allowed to defend if an enemy unit enters their square (after all, enemy ships would be able to acquire line-of-sight if they got close enough, no matter how invisible to RADAR/SONAR they may be,) or:
(2) The XML file should be changed so that Destroyers are not obsoleted with Stealth Destroyers, so that an escort-class warship can still be constructed in the Future era.
I personally prefer (1) to (2)....