Dee McLean wrote: »
...there is no difference, a base cannot get any flatter than flat
FKIT wrote: »
Second, do you remember what you did before base planner? MOVED CHIT BY HAND ONE PAINFUL WALL AT A TIME!!
Shiba wrote: »
I hope you are still reading this far back into the thread..
My only concern. With my current base set up, just removing the extra land that this change would give me. I now have 10 more land to play with.
I am already SFB proof, so I do not have to worry about adding more to the ring.
I can add a couple tiles to the middle island and go back to 4 or 5 WHs, BUT for the most part I will be extending my channel quite a bit. Doing this will make the attacking fleet waste very valuable time maneuvering through the channel before they even get to the meat of my base. ( which for the most part will not change )
this will do a few things.
Make base fleets w/o engs more likely to time out
Makes FFs and HHs even more useless against me.
IF they do have Engs, makes my VMs even better ( -20 percent accuracy ) SO fleets die even faster then they do now.
Making Forsaken ships even weaker in my base since they do not have a base resist.
I would love to see this added.. BUT I do fear that it will hinder base attacks making them even harder then they already are.
Matthew Davis wrote: »
I like this idea much better than allowing diagonal squares, it would allow us to use the available space more efficiently without changing the maximum base size or the land title rules.