I feel like if anything, if your opponent is super loose, you should loosen up your range just slightly less than his.
Sounds like you're on the right track. Dead money (the blinds) is the other factor in how loose to play. Imagine a simplified heads up game. SB has a choice between shoving, or folding and surrendering the blinds. BB can then call or fold. If BB is folding all the time, SB immediately profits from shoving any two cards and picking up the blinds. As BB starts calling more, SB should progressively tighten up to avoid getting it in bad too frequently. And at a certain point, SB should stop tightening up, and actually loosen up again (slightly).
The defender's best response is simple - Be slightly tighter than the attacker.
The attacker's best response is not so linear. At the extreme ends of the spectrum the attacker wants to be either much looser, or a bit tighter. Around the equilibrium the attacker wants to be just a bit looser. This is because of the dead money. The attacker expects to lose on average when called, but makes up for it with the times they win the blinds uncontested.
You see these ideas carry over into the full NLHE game. With super nits in the blinds you can steal with ATC. Against a fish you might jam TPTK because they'll always call with a flush draw or some dominated pair. Versus a normal player you wouldn't necessarily do that. It's just a balance between getting it in good, and winning the dead money.
On the topic of maniacs. You may decide to still play tight vs a maniac even though you know it's technically correct to loosen up. This is a lower variance strategy. The downside is that you are giving up EV, and they may go broke before you make the nuts.