|
Since this whole topic degenerated into the usual balance flamefest where every topic ends up if unmoderated it's time for it to clean up. Locking this down for a while. Any posts made after my post [page 233] not addressing the changes in this patch directly and containting flames or general balance whine will get banned for at least a week. ~Nyovne
There is way too much flaming in this thread right now. Calm down before you post! (Page 271) ~iamke55 |
United States7483 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:22 ChoiBoi wrote:
It's not that carriers need a buff for build time, it's more that the interceptor attack priority makes it a little bit more iffy than if carriers were higher priority, so that carriers can dish out the damage while still tanking.
That's part of it, but you really do need a shorter build time, you can hardly get them out at all without being dead or way behind.
Their build time is 2 minutes. 2 effing minutes. The only unit in the game with a longer build time is the Mothership.
|
why is carrier buildtime 120 when bc is 90 and ultras is 70 ?
|
On September 09 2011 06:26 farnham wrote:
why is carrier buildtime 120 when bc is 90 and ultras is 70 ?
carrier has the most DPS in the game
____
loving that helion decrease  lings will have more survivability
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:28 idkju wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 06:26 farnham wrote:
why is carrier buildtime 120 when bc is 90 and ultras is 70 ? carrier has the most DPS in the game ____ loving that helion decrease lings will have more survivability
No it doesn't, where do people get this wrong idea from all the time? Carriers do not have the highest dps in the game, it's not even close compared to a certain other unit.
A carrier with all 8 interceptors has a DPS of 26.7. It goes up by 5.3 for each air weapons upgrade, at 3 weapons upgrades it's at 42.6. Remember that interceptors die frequently, so it's actual effective dps will be lower a lot of the time.
Compare to, let's say, the battlecruiser, which has a DPS of 35.6, and goes up by 4.4 for each air weapons upgrade (finishes higher than carrier at 3 weapons for both). 48.8 at +3 weapons upgrade
Other units that do more DPS than the carrier: Thor (46.9 vs ground, highest in the game, increases by 4.7 per upgrade), anything with splash in the right circumstance (hellions hitting 4 or more light enemies, banelings against buildings/multiple light units, spellcasters hitting clumps, sieged tanks, etc.). Against ground? The Thor does a whopping 61 dps at +3 weapons. Yeah, thors are pretty good.
Also, lings will still die in 2 hits from blueflame hellions, sorry. They won't last any longer than before.
|
On September 09 2011 06:26 farnham wrote:
why is carrier buildtime 120 when bc is 90 and ultras is 70 ?
Chronoboost. Though I do think they need a slight build time reduction, perhaps for battlecruisers too.
|
On September 09 2011 06:33 superbabosheki wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 06:26 farnham wrote:
why is carrier buildtime 120 when bc is 90 and ultras is 70 ? Chronoboost. Though I do think they need a slight build time reduction, perhaps for battlecruisers too.
Eh, they could reduce it by 20 seconds and I don't think it would change that much. Not like adding a reactor to your starport is hard.
|
On September 09 2011 06:36 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 06:33 superbabosheki wrote:On September 09 2011 06:26 farnham wrote:
why is carrier buildtime 120 when bc is 90 and ultras is 70 ? Chronoboost. Though I do think they need a slight build time reduction, perhaps for battlecruisers too. Eh, they could reduce it by 20 seconds and I don't think it would change that much. Not like adding a reactor to your starport is hard.
Battlecruisers do not come out of reactor? :p.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:33 superbabosheki wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 06:26 farnham wrote:
why is carrier buildtime 120 when bc is 90 and ultras is 70 ? Chronoboost. Though I do think they need a slight build time reduction, perhaps for battlecruisers too.
What's the point of having chronoboost as a racial feature if the standard build time for units assume it will always be purely chronoboosted in order for the unit to have a reasonable build time? I should point out that a carrier that is spam chronoboosted still has a very long build time of 80.
|
On September 09 2011 06:22 ChoiBoi wrote:
It's not that carriers need a buff for build time, it's more that the interceptor attack priority makes it a little bit more iffy than if carriers were higher priority, so that carriers can dish out the damage while still tanking.
it's too hard to get them, period.
nobody says a high number of carriers is bad.
but by the time you get them your enemy probably already has +3 armor, or atleast +2.
so you need to equal out your air upgrades.
(every carrier has 8 interceptors, wich do 2 shots, so one volley of a carrier shot is reduced by 16 if the enemy just has +1 armor)
on top of that they get countered by the same units colossus are already countered by...
So if you have to decide between carriers and colossus it becomes easy to see that there is barely a role for the carrier in the protoss army.(and what else you gonna do with a slow and big ass expensive ship other than protecting it with your other army?!)
assuming the zerg/terran WILL build vikings/corrupter, I would still rather have +2/+2 ground and 4 colossus instead of +3/0 air and 4 carriers with a 0/0 ground army...
they get both countered by the same units, so you might as well take the path that actually has any other use beyond that one single unit... meaning ground upgrades, immortals, warp prisms and of course observers.
Now if stargate tech + fleet beacon could offer something similar to robotics facility + bay then teching to carriers would be a viable thing.
but they dont, you only get phoenix and void rays, both of wich are useless past early game and there are no other interesting upgrades.(I wonder why)
|
On September 09 2011 06:38 BuZZ123 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 06:36 0neder wrote:On September 09 2011 06:33 superbabosheki wrote:On September 09 2011 06:26 farnham wrote:
why is carrier buildtime 120 when bc is 90 and ultras is 70 ? Chronoboost. Though I do think they need a slight build time reduction, perhaps for battlecruisers too. Eh, they could reduce it by 20 seconds and I don't think it would change that much. Not like adding a reactor to your starport is hard. Battlecruisers do not come out of reactor? :p.
I think he meant that the producing vikings out of a reactor starport will still shut down carriers even if they built 20 seconds faster.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:49 beute wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 06:22 ChoiBoi wrote:
It's not that carriers need a buff for build time, it's more that the interceptor attack priority makes it a little bit more iffy than if carriers were higher priority, so that carriers can dish out the damage while still tanking. it's too hard to get them, period. nobody says a high number of carriers is bad. but by the time you get them your enemy probably already has +3 armor, or atleast +2. so you need to equal out your air upgrades. (every carrier has 8 interceptors, wich do 2 shots, so one volley of a carrier shot is reduced by 16 if the enemy just has +1 armor) on top of that they get countered by the same units colossus are already countered by... So if you have to decide between carriers and colossus it becomes easy to see that there is barely a role for the carrier in the protoss army.(and what else you gonna do with a slow and big ass expensive ship other than protecting it with your other army?!) assuming the zerg/terran WILL build vikings/corrupter, I would still rather have +2/+2 ground and 4 colossus instead of +3/0 air and 4 carriers with a 0/0 ground army... they get both countered by the same units, so you might as well take the path that actually has any other use beyond that one single unit... meaning ground upgrades, immortals, warp prisms and of course observers. Now if stargate tech + fleet beacon could offer something similar to robotics facility + bay then teching to carriers would be a viable thing. but they dont, you only get phoenix and void rays, both of wich are useless past early game and there are no other interesting upgrades.(I wonder why)
If you can manage it, mixing some carriers in with a colossi based army is actually really very good. Carriers trade cost efficiently in protoss' favor with vikings until there are enough vikings to one shot carriers, and their vikings would have to choose between your carriers and your colossi to focus down. It's just that managing to get 4-6 colossi and 4-6 carriers out and having a gateway army to tank for your colossi is almost impossible to get out.
|
On September 09 2011 07:00 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 06:49 beute wrote:On September 09 2011 06:22 ChoiBoi wrote:
It's not that carriers need a buff for build time, it's more that the interceptor attack priority makes it a little bit more iffy than if carriers were higher priority, so that carriers can dish out the damage while still tanking. it's too hard to get them, period. nobody says a high number of carriers is bad. but by the time you get them your enemy probably already has +3 armor, or atleast +2. so you need to equal out your air upgrades. (every carrier has 8 interceptors, wich do 2 shots, so one volley of a carrier shot is reduced by 16 if the enemy just has +1 armor) on top of that they get countered by the same units colossus are already countered by... So if you have to decide between carriers and colossus it becomes easy to see that there is barely a role for the carrier in the protoss army.(and what else you gonna do with a slow and big ass expensive ship other than protecting it with your other army?!) assuming the zerg/terran WILL build vikings/corrupter, I would still rather have +2/+2 ground and 4 colossus instead of +3/0 air and 4 carriers with a 0/0 ground army... they get both countered by the same units, so you might as well take the path that actually has any other use beyond that one single unit... meaning ground upgrades, immortals, warp prisms and of course observers. Now if stargate tech + fleet beacon could offer something similar to robotics facility + bay then teching to carriers would be a viable thing. but they dont, you only get phoenix and void rays, both of wich are useless past early game and there are no other interesting upgrades.(I wonder why) If you can manage it, mixing some carriers in with a colossi based army is actually really very good. Carriers trade cost efficiently in protoss' favor with vikings until there are enough vikings to one shot carriers, and their vikings would have to choose between your carriers and your colossi to focus down. It's just that managing to get 4-6 colossi and 4-6 carriers out and having a gateway army to tank for your colossi is almost impossible to get out.
so nice to know that as long as I get out 4 to 5 colossi and some carriers I can take on stimmed bio with medvacs and vikings.....
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 09 2011 07:06 Rorschach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:00 Whitewing wrote:On September 09 2011 06:49 beute wrote:On September 09 2011 06:22 ChoiBoi wrote:
It's not that carriers need a buff for build time, it's more that the interceptor attack priority makes it a little bit more iffy than if carriers were higher priority, so that carriers can dish out the damage while still tanking. it's too hard to get them, period. nobody says a high number of carriers is bad. but by the time you get them your enemy probably already has +3 armor, or atleast +2. so you need to equal out your air upgrades. (every carrier has 8 interceptors, wich do 2 shots, so one volley of a carrier shot is reduced by 16 if the enemy just has +1 armor) on top of that they get countered by the same units colossus are already countered by... So if you have to decide between carriers and colossus it becomes easy to see that there is barely a role for the carrier in the protoss army.(and what else you gonna do with a slow and big ass expensive ship other than protecting it with your other army?!) assuming the zerg/terran WILL build vikings/corrupter, I would still rather have +2/+2 ground and 4 colossus instead of +3/0 air and 4 carriers with a 0/0 ground army... they get both countered by the same units, so you might as well take the path that actually has any other use beyond that one single unit... meaning ground upgrades, immortals, warp prisms and of course observers. Now if stargate tech + fleet beacon could offer something similar to robotics facility + bay then teching to carriers would be a viable thing. but they dont, you only get phoenix and void rays, both of wich are useless past early game and there are no other interesting upgrades.(I wonder why) If you can manage it, mixing some carriers in with a colossi based army is actually really very good. Carriers trade cost efficiently in protoss' favor with vikings until there are enough vikings to one shot carriers, and their vikings would have to choose between your carriers and your colossi to focus down. It's just that managing to get 4-6 colossi and 4-6 carriers out and having a gateway army to tank for your colossi is almost impossible to get out. so nice to know that as long as I get out 4 to 5 colossi and some carriers I can take on stimmed bio with medvacs and vikings.....
Heh, if you can somehow miracle that army out, you'll literally walk over a MMM/viking army, even if all your stuff gets EMP'd, so long as your upgrades aren't way behind. Good luck getting the comp out though, the build time and cost on carriers makes it almost impossible.
|
On September 09 2011 07:10 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:06 Rorschach wrote:On September 09 2011 07:00 Whitewing wrote:On September 09 2011 06:49 beute wrote:On September 09 2011 06:22 ChoiBoi wrote:
It's not that carriers need a buff for build time, it's more that the interceptor attack priority makes it a little bit more iffy than if carriers were higher priority, so that carriers can dish out the damage while still tanking. it's too hard to get them, period. nobody says a high number of carriers is bad. but by the time you get them your enemy probably already has +3 armor, or atleast +2. so you need to equal out your air upgrades. (every carrier has 8 interceptors, wich do 2 shots, so one volley of a carrier shot is reduced by 16 if the enemy just has +1 armor) on top of that they get countered by the same units colossus are already countered by... So if you have to decide between carriers and colossus it becomes easy to see that there is barely a role for the carrier in the protoss army.(and what else you gonna do with a slow and big ass expensive ship other than protecting it with your other army?!) assuming the zerg/terran WILL build vikings/corrupter, I would still rather have +2/+2 ground and 4 colossus instead of +3/0 air and 4 carriers with a 0/0 ground army... they get both countered by the same units, so you might as well take the path that actually has any other use beyond that one single unit... meaning ground upgrades, immortals, warp prisms and of course observers. Now if stargate tech + fleet beacon could offer something similar to robotics facility + bay then teching to carriers would be a viable thing. but they dont, you only get phoenix and void rays, both of wich are useless past early game and there are no other interesting upgrades.(I wonder why) If you can manage it, mixing some carriers in with a colossi based army is actually really very good. Carriers trade cost efficiently in protoss' favor with vikings until there are enough vikings to one shot carriers, and their vikings would have to choose between your carriers and your colossi to focus down. It's just that managing to get 4-6 colossi and 4-6 carriers out and having a gateway army to tank for your colossi is almost impossible to get out. so nice to know that as long as I get out 4 to 5 colossi and some carriers I can take on stimmed bio with medvacs and vikings..... Heh, if you can somehow miracle that army out, you'll literally walk over a MMM/viking army, even if all your stuff gets EMP'd, so long as your upgrades aren't way behind. Good luck getting the comp out though, the build time and cost on carriers makes it almost impossible.
I know, was a total sarcastic tone....
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 09 2011 07:12 Rorschach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:10 Whitewing wrote:On September 09 2011 07:06 Rorschach wrote:On September 09 2011 07:00 Whitewing wrote:On September 09 2011 06:49 beute wrote:On September 09 2011 06:22 ChoiBoi wrote:
It's not that carriers need a buff for build time, it's more that the interceptor attack priority makes it a little bit more iffy than if carriers were higher priority, so that carriers can dish out the damage while still tanking. it's too hard to get them, period. nobody says a high number of carriers is bad. but by the time you get them your enemy probably already has +3 armor, or atleast +2. so you need to equal out your air upgrades. (every carrier has 8 interceptors, wich do 2 shots, so one volley of a carrier shot is reduced by 16 if the enemy just has +1 armor) on top of that they get countered by the same units colossus are already countered by... So if you have to decide between carriers and colossus it becomes easy to see that there is barely a role for the carrier in the protoss army.(and what else you gonna do with a slow and big ass expensive ship other than protecting it with your other army?!) assuming the zerg/terran WILL build vikings/corrupter, I would still rather have +2/+2 ground and 4 colossus instead of +3/0 air and 4 carriers with a 0/0 ground army... they get both countered by the same units, so you might as well take the path that actually has any other use beyond that one single unit... meaning ground upgrades, immortals, warp prisms and of course observers. Now if stargate tech + fleet beacon could offer something similar to robotics facility + bay then teching to carriers would be a viable thing. but they dont, you only get phoenix and void rays, both of wich are useless past early game and there are no other interesting upgrades.(I wonder why) If you can manage it, mixing some carriers in with a colossi based army is actually really very good. Carriers trade cost efficiently in protoss' favor with vikings until there are enough vikings to one shot carriers, and their vikings would have to choose between your carriers and your colossi to focus down. It's just that managing to get 4-6 colossi and 4-6 carriers out and having a gateway army to tank for your colossi is almost impossible to get out. so nice to know that as long as I get out 4 to 5 colossi and some carriers I can take on stimmed bio with medvacs and vikings..... Heh, if you can somehow miracle that army out, you'll literally walk over a MMM/viking army, even if all your stuff gets EMP'd, so long as your upgrades aren't way behind. Good luck getting the comp out though, the build time and cost on carriers makes it almost impossible. I know, was a total sarcastic tone....
I know you were being sarcastic, I chose to humor you =p.
|
On September 09 2011 07:00 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 06:49 beute wrote:On September 09 2011 06:22 ChoiBoi wrote:
It's not that carriers need a buff for build time, it's more that the interceptor attack priority makes it a little bit more iffy than if carriers were higher priority, so that carriers can dish out the damage while still tanking. it's too hard to get them, period. nobody says a high number of carriers is bad. but by the time you get them your enemy probably already has +3 armor, or atleast +2. so you need to equal out your air upgrades. (every carrier has 8 interceptors, wich do 2 shots, so one volley of a carrier shot is reduced by 16 if the enemy just has +1 armor) on top of that they get countered by the same units colossus are already countered by... So if you have to decide between carriers and colossus it becomes easy to see that there is barely a role for the carrier in the protoss army.(and what else you gonna do with a slow and big ass expensive ship other than protecting it with your other army?!) assuming the zerg/terran WILL build vikings/corrupter, I would still rather have +2/+2 ground and 4 colossus instead of +3/0 air and 4 carriers with a 0/0 ground army... they get both countered by the same units, so you might as well take the path that actually has any other use beyond that one single unit... meaning ground upgrades, immortals, warp prisms and of course observers. Now if stargate tech + fleet beacon could offer something similar to robotics facility + bay then teching to carriers would be a viable thing. but they dont, you only get phoenix and void rays, both of wich are useless past early game and there are no other interesting upgrades.(I wonder why) If you can manage it, mixing some carriers in with a colossi based army is actually really very good. Carriers trade cost efficiently in protoss' favor with vikings until there are enough vikings to one shot carriers, and their vikings would have to choose between your carriers and your colossi to focus down. It's just that managing to get 4-6 colossi and 4-6 carriers out and having a gateway army to tank for your colossi is almost impossible to get out.
I dont see that working well unless he first scouts the colossus AND the carriers when there are already 8+ of them on the field.
I mean, 1 single reactored starport makes 6 vikings in the same time a carrier is build.
there is no way that would succeed if the terran isnt playing completely blind...
|
On September 09 2011 06:32 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 06:28 idkju wrote:On September 09 2011 06:26 farnham wrote:
why is carrier buildtime 120 when bc is 90 and ultras is 70 ? carrier has the most DPS in the game ____ loving that helion decrease lings will have more survivability No it doesn't, where do people get this wrong idea from all the time? Carriers do not have the highest dps in the game, it's not even close compared to a certain other unit. A carrier with all 8 interceptors has a DPS of 26.7. It goes up by 5.3 for each air weapons upgrade, at 3 weapons upgrades it's at 42.6. Remember that interceptors die frequently, so it's actual effective dps will be lower a lot of the time. Compare to, let's say, the battlecruiser, which has a DPS of 35.6, and goes up by 4.4 for each air weapons upgrade (finishes higher than carrier at 3 weapons for both). 48.8 at +3 weapons upgrade Other units that do more DPS than the carrier: Thor (46.9 vs ground, highest in the game, increases by 4.7 per upgrade), anything with splash in the right circumstance (hellions hitting 4 or more light enemies, banelings against buildings/multiple light units, spellcasters hitting clumps, sieged tanks, etc.). Against ground? The Thor does a whopping 61 dps at +3 weapons. Yeah, thors are pretty good. Also, lings will still die in 2 hits from blueflame hellions, sorry. They won't last any longer than before.
I really don't understand why people STILL think carriers do the most dps. There is simply NO reason to make carriers so unusable in every matchup. The build time does not justify the DPS - the speed is too slow - and the interceptors are too fragile.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 09 2011 07:20 Loodah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 06:32 Whitewing wrote:On September 09 2011 06:28 idkju wrote:On September 09 2011 06:26 farnham wrote:
why is carrier buildtime 120 when bc is 90 and ultras is 70 ? carrier has the most DPS in the game ____ loving that helion decrease lings will have more survivability No it doesn't, where do people get this wrong idea from all the time? Carriers do not have the highest dps in the game, it's not even close compared to a certain other unit. A carrier with all 8 interceptors has a DPS of 26.7. It goes up by 5.3 for each air weapons upgrade, at 3 weapons upgrades it's at 42.6. Remember that interceptors die frequently, so it's actual effective dps will be lower a lot of the time. Compare to, let's say, the battlecruiser, which has a DPS of 35.6, and goes up by 4.4 for each air weapons upgrade (finishes higher than carrier at 3 weapons for both). 48.8 at +3 weapons upgrade Other units that do more DPS than the carrier: Thor (46.9 vs ground, highest in the game, increases by 4.7 per upgrade), anything with splash in the right circumstance (hellions hitting 4 or more light enemies, banelings against buildings/multiple light units, spellcasters hitting clumps, sieged tanks, etc.). Against ground? The Thor does a whopping 61 dps at +3 weapons. Yeah, thors are pretty good. Also, lings will still die in 2 hits from blueflame hellions, sorry. They won't last any longer than before. I really don't understand why people STILL think carriers do the most dps. There is simply NO reason to make carriers so unusable in every matchup. The build time does not justify the DPS - the speed is too slow - and the interceptors are too fragile.
I also want to point out that to outdps a carrier requires a mere 3 stimmed marines, at half the supply cost, no gas cost for the units, much faster build time, and less than half the mineral cost. The carrier's DPS actually blows chunks for its cost, supply cost, and build time. The one thing it's good at is that it can fly, has decent range, and can take a few hits before it gets killed.
|
This probably isn't a good comparison, but the BroodWar Carrier and Battlecruisers have changed very little.
BW BC http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Battlecruiser
400 minerals, 300 gas, 133 build time, 6 supply
500 life, 3 armor
SC2 BC http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Battlecruiser
400 minerals, 300 gas, 90 build time, 6 supply
550 life, 3 armor
The SC2 BC has 50 more health, 43 less build time, and thats it. I have difficulty comparing the damage output on liquipedia, since for the BW one they do not have dps stats and all it says is it does 25 for both air and ground. The SC2 one does 6 against air and 8 against ground, but I'm not sure if it fires multiple times.
BW Carrier http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Carrier
350 minerals + 200 minerals for interceptors, 250 gas, 140 build time, 6 supply
300 life 150 shields, 4 armor
SC2 Carrier http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Carrier
350 minerals + 100 minerals for interceptors, 250 gas, 120 build time, 6 supply
300 life 150 shields, 2 armor
The damage output has definitely been buffed for SC2 carriers since I think each interceptor does 10 damage, while in BW it did 6.
But I feel like the 2 less armor is a bigger deal. Perhaps if they buffed the armor and nerfed the damage for the Carrier it would be better? Can anyone theorycraft this?
|
On September 09 2011 07:26 flowSthead wrote:
This probably isn't a good comparison, but the BroodWar Carrier and Battlecruisers have changed very little.
BW BC (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Battlecruiser)
400 minerals, 300 gas, 133 build time, 6 supply
500 life, 3 armor
SC2 BC (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Battlecruiser)
400 minerals, 300 gas, 90 build time, 6 supply
550 life, 3 armor
The SC2 BC has 50 more health, 43 less build time, and thats it. I have difficulty comparing the damage output on liquipedia, since for the BW one they do not have dps stats and all it says is it does 25 for both air and ground. The SC2 one does 6 against air and 8 against ground, but I'm not sure if it fires multiple times.
BW Carrier (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Carrier)
350 minerals + 200 minerals for interceptors, 250 gas, 140 build time, 6 supply
300 life 150 shields, 4 armor
SC2 Carrier (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Carrier)
350 minerals + 100 minerals for interceptors, 250 gas, 120 build time, 6 supply
300 life 150 shields, 2 armor
The damage output has definitely been buffed for SC2 carriers since I think each interceptor does 10 damage, while in BW it did 6.
But I feel like the 2 less armor is a bigger deal. Perhaps if they buffed the armor and nerfed the damage for the Carrier it would be better? Can anyone theorycraft this?
Your forgetting a big factor of the speed of units, you can't just look at stats.
One thing the carrier had on the BC was it was faster until a recent patch where BC speed was buffed considerably. So carriers can no longer kite the other capital ship which was its best attribute compared to the BC's yamato cannon...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
