Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Pretty sure it's mostly just fitting name after the fact, and not the other way around.
With chokepoints all around, multiple fleets should be even more effective way to deal with "rapid response" needs, and logistics are probably also easier to organize by moving shipyards between places in a more positional warfare between these.
- Wanted to have something that'd move small/underpowered ships fast between places.
- Add some penalty to make it not an obvious choice in all cases, even though you can still use it for cheating AI with dedicated tactics.
- Think of a name for this thing - being kinda similar to "afterburners" in function, "microwarpdrives" seemed to be a good fit.
So as you can see, at no point there was any consideration to make it work like it does in EVE.
Only link is corresponding name (picked after the fact due to some degree of similarity) and brief mention in the description.
Don't think there's much point or even possibility to make it work the same, as both combat and equipment mechanics of these two games are quite different.
Idea is to penaltize smaller ships more that way, as they get stronger speed buff from these modules (due to already high base velocity).