The cost worth effect is backwards when applied. If not, what it still sounds/looks like.


Thanks,

Kellogen

It shouldnt be for free to defend on foreign planets/moons since you aquire an advantage by it already. You basically pay for the possibility to defend someone else.

Defending is already easier than attacking, do not make it easier, by reducing the costs, so that everyone who stacks in one system can ACS defend for nothing...

Idling deuterium disappears once cancelled for essentially no Arrival for Idling of Fleet to sustain Idle Costs makes kinda some sense. But rather say they have the same return cost for destination travel still say for the slightly shorter trip back, I don't know on that one. Makes some sense but not at all times. But say least the A-B worth of a total distance, than rather A-B-A seems likely to still be able to pull off though. Given, going half-way there and back would be worth the initial say destination time in total without "full-commit", if not mistaken.

But how that would still yield massive fuel costs though against the difference, I'm not sure.

And if further say not mistaken, if you can essentially amass say any size fleet say even with an Alliance, at a time though thoughts of defending situations to some terms say said would not really say is favored but probably in contrast to such to say as well. Meaning, even if say defending planets can get stacked doesn't necessarily say they are always going to outnumber the difference. But the new Universes may have say a vast limit to the difference in say some contrast.

Also, if I'm further not mistaken, isn't there options and/or features for say reducing some costs though already??

From there I would say partially agree additional for say not free as well, but perhaps only for instances. Otherwise, just seems like larger numbers would sustain worth of why for free and any interest of Offensive for say the counter still would not be worth as much. Which to then should sustain an equal set.

Even on say an idea of Defending Planet place of costs, would still say have Planet Defenses into comparison. Which as of yet, would yield another addition to stacked Defended Planets. Which to me by now though say for said really just puts in the 50-50. Rather reduced fuel costs sustain a difference, would be like saying the saved difference could be used for weapons and/or shields, which essentially if so, would not be saved. But as such would probably sustain Overloaded weapons which against some Offensive interests would just rely to have say the 50-50 to be as even as possible, and as such just sustain defending for the difference then, but rather Supported for Stack without Cost, I'm not sure.
From what is said before still, still questions if overloaded would be needed though. And the rest if so seems to come down to what is saved really.

So, even when say pulling any last worth of favor against Offensive for the Defensive foresight seems to just sustain still what is initial costs within regards to still saving, and/or not - depending how you say look at it.

But of last perhaps, would say of time Offense is not Idling for Travel Concerns. Which to me by then otherwise, seems like the numbers are backwards.


Thanks,

Kellogen

Well, if cancelling still stops Idling costs, but yet charges you still for the cost of the return trip, then for not having costs between given that is what is not used to get to your destination would seem reasonable.

Which again though to me seems like what is backwards, but to say reduce calculation costs seems reasonable. And since Idling for Orbit has no definite amount of time, then it's worth of cost is say as placed, rather intently or not.

But say still without, for my corrective from my post to yours from say which I had asked, does seem though from what you've said deuterium does have a high cost in usage for the regards.

But again, I would rely on my prior post for what I've said for why that is then what I've said in the post for say prior says.

But if calculations was say the off-set difference, then free would seem the best answer for such, and as such has been said not to say have. So the only alternative I can say least find for the moment would be a constant run-time cost, Fleet burns engines during Travel to say gain distance traveled for destination, and say impulse from slow down perhaps to say provides idling orbit.
Which would still cover 2/3 costs, and as such say taking Idling cost for about maybe 10-25% as such additional to 2/3, might be reasonable, but is say still better said as Reduce ACS Defending cost at a time.
But a further alternative least from as well, would say then defending forces have deuterium fuel costs for battle. Which might already, I'm not sure.

Hopefully that makes more sense and can be comprehended better off for any further awareness for what was said then anything I was saying earlier.

But i would say so far I think I've gotten where you are coming from in total. And if still didn't say for this post though, rather without the prior ones, still seems backwards for why it is, even is from say a new idea for.

But as say for my language is basically American Standard, which can be called English, but usually never say used the same. Don't think it is even expected at a time really, but I've tried before. But say American Standard and English is not the samething. But between thoughts of two languages usually are most similar than say otherwise, given English is still word of most common reference. American Standard does say change alot of words around for the same and many usages to say a change. Just not much sometimes is spelt differently, but does happen more than not.


Thanks,

Kellogen