| 1 |
[q] Automated targeting doesn't change anything about armor classes because you can already shoot at them manually. Either the targeting should be automated or the water penetration of the projectiles removed. Do you mean that the removal of water penetration would bring the sub armor class back and would therefore be bad? [/q]
|
1 |
[q] Automated targeting doesn't change anything about armor classes because you can already shoot at them manually. Either the targeting should be automated or the water penetration of the projectiles removed. Do you mean that the removal of water penetration would bring the sub armor class back and would therefore be bad? [/q]
|
| 2 |
For most of its existence, ZK had an armor class named "sub" that received 5% damage from all non-antisub weapons. This was removed because changing Seawolf preferred depth allowed it to avoid most of the aoe anyway.
|
2 |
For most of its existence, ZK had an armor class named "sub" that received 5% damage from all non-antisub weapons. This was removed because changing Seawolf preferred depth allowed it to avoid most of the aoe anyway.
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
Mistral
becoming
a
problem
is
most
easily
fixed
by
reverting
this
change,
second
easiest
solved
by
a
reduction
in
Mistral
AoE,
third
easiest
by
making
Seawolf
submerge
deeper,
and
is
very
unlikely
to
be
solved
by
essentially
declaring
Mistral
to
have
essentially
the
old
Crusader
Depth
Charge
sidearm,
as
per
the
OP.
|
4 |
Mistral
becoming
a
problem
is
most
easily
fixed
by
reverting
this
change,
second
easiest
solved
by
a
reduction
in
Mistral
AoE,
third
easiest
by
making
Seawolf
submerge
deeper,
and
is
very
unlikely
to
be
solved
by
declaring
Mistral
to
have
essentially
the
old
Crusader
Depth
Charge
sidearm,
as
per
the
OP.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
[q]in that case, automated targeting would be the preferred solution. [/q]
|
6 |
[q]in that case, automated targeting would be the preferred solution. [/q]
|
| 7 |
Uhhhh
|
7 |
Uhhhh
|
Mistral vs Seawolf