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
Guess they favor the spacing in space over the spacing on ground to not let orbitals slip through, so I'm assuming they keep optimal spacing on the orbital grid and F all how tight the spacing is on the ground... and given that I mostly use it for ground defense I find that kinda' irritating.
Cheers for the quick and concise answer, much appreciated!
The spacing and weapon range is the same, independent of planet size. But when directed downwards to the surface of a *spherical* planet, the "effective" range at the surface is greater on very small planets which give you greater overlap.
As for spacing when queuing an AREA build, you will have range overlap when queuing a 3x3 & 5x5 grid, but larger grids than that and the spacing increases such that you have zero overlap in weapons range. You can see this on the ground when queuing by looking at the red range circles.
Jigs have the same spacing behavior when ordering an area build.