This is a gameplay, not a scientific point, but:
Why is it that it takes tens of seconds to jump from planet to planet but merely ones of seconds to go all the way from stars to stars?

i have noticed how all the planets are the same size even though in real life they are vastly diffrent

you know....i think this thread died    

Oh dear. Perhaps a burial is in order?

Declare it an uncolonisable asteroid belt and move on.

Well, here goes:

A: Ships in space could have fire. Well, for a little while at any rate, as the oxygen inside burns up. But that would happen in seconds, not the long trail of flames you see in the game ( unless of course the hit damaged a pipe that contains oxigen ). Not to mention giant explosions, the ship would probably more likely just drift apart than end in some catastrophic fireball.

B: No manuevering thrusters! For every reaction there is an equal and opposit reaction and all that fun stuff... Oh, and for that very reason, for each and every one of the fires referanced earlier would cause the ship to move.

C: Weapons. If you were to end up using any kind of gun, you'd need to bring oxygen with you to fire it. And don't forget the massive batteries for space lasers and railguns.

D: Races: It's unlikely that should we ever meet ( or have it meet us ) life out there that they will be bipedal humanoids. Sorry to all you starwars and star trek fans out there ( BSG fans, you're allright; the humans made the Cylons )

E: Planets: It's unlikely in the extreme that a planet harbouring life of any kind could be classed as 'desert' 'terran' or the like. Instead, general regions tend to form, permiting the existance of varied climates ( the Earth has all the types of planets in one neat package. ) The only exception I can think of is Mars - but Mars ( so far as we know ) does not contain any life, and therfore is exempt.

Anyways, there are more errors, but hey, it's a sci-fi game. AKA, not based in reality. Just go play some more and enjoy it

Not true. Look up hypergolic propellants.

Bullets don't need oxygen; all of the reactants are in the propellant. Otherwise, how could you ignite the propellant inside of an airtight cartridge, or fire a gun underwater? Guns work perfectly fine in space; in fact, back in the 70's, the Soviets put a 30mm cannon on one of their early space stations (Salyut 2, to be precise) and destroyed a target satellite with it.

*cough*Suspension of disbelief*cough*

Excuse me.

I am shocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3

This might actually be true.

[quote who="ddade13x" reply="17" id="1801824"]Sorry, must have missed the announcement. Scientists have found another Earthlike planet? Last I checked they have found "Planets" But no earthlike planets. Scientists require proof for a theory to have legs. So far, no proof=no legs.[quote]

We do not have absolute irrefutable proof that there are other 'terran' planets out there, in part because our ability to find and analyze planets at the ranges we are doing it at is almost pitifully bad.  Finding mathematical chances given known information, on the other hand, is a different story.  We have no small amount of information on what would be required for an earthlike planet to be created, so while we have awful tools for determining what DID happen, finding what the chances of each planet being which types, including planet types that would be capable of supporting life is not a matter of proof for or against.

It is a matter of ODDS... CHANCES... given our CURRENT knowledge.  Trying to say something can't be out there because we don't have examples catalogued is as much an example of wrongheaded thinking as assuming there absolutely must be tons because we haven't run out of places to look.

It is not an unreasonable assumption that there is a significant chance there are 'terran' planets capable of bearing life out there.  Until there is absolute proof one way or the other, what we have is a chance.  There are conditions that make a life bearing planet.  Our best estimate is these conditions can easily enough happen in a multitude of solar systems.  Did they?  The logical conclusion is probably, but not definitely, and that will remain the conclusion unless we get evidence to either prove, disprove, or drastically change our math on the subject.

The earth was spherical LONG before we proved it was.

then this might be of interest to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

still no definite answer, but a starting point. bottom line: maybe there are others out there, but if so, then not very many.

common?common my ass

um why resurrect a year and a half old dead thread just to make this comment?

if there's 1 freaking thing that makes no sense in sins is the radiance battleship; i mean why was a highly advanced civilization like the advent somehow FORGOT to place their radiance main weapon (laser) into the front bank? why the hell the pretty primitive(compared to advent and vasari) traders could place their Kol's main weapon(autocannon)into 4 banks(front back sidearms) and why the so called chicken running vasaris still managed to place their Kortul main weapon(pulse beam)into 3 banks?(front and sidearms) this not to mention battleships in sins are regarded as the commanding capital ships as they positioned themselves most forward in battle?

sure thing revenge can blind ur eyes er i mean u GODDAMN advent technicians who constructed or designed ur so called front line battleships eh?:p

Just the fact that the planets are so easy to take over with a couple of drop pods doesn't make sense to me. I mean, if it's a planet still in possession of the militia people, wouldn't there be a costly world war for the planet?

also, when dealing with enemy planets, eradicating all life on each of the planets with bombardment doesn't seem like a practical way to gain any sort of economical advantage, I mean, who wants to colonize on a bombed out wasteland planet? the economy of the planet would be REALLY slow to start out on. 

also,there is no scientific proof that wormholes exist,and if they did they would be unstable,last for about 2 seconds,and be smaller then an atom,yet in sins,they are the size of planets

You have no idea how much relief that brought me...

Here's my beef with sins...why don't the TEC have female voices?  I mean come on, they have the most population on terran worlds...they gotta have at least some good lookin' women...and don't tell me all the pretty ones joined the Advent, that is total crap....

Another thing I have thought of...the Advent are in my opinion the absolute freakiest sci-fi race ever...think about this, seriously....

What is the freakiest thing the rest of science fiction has?  Cyborgs?  A Death Star?  Black Hole guns?  Please...

It when you look out your cockpit window and see giant freaking hands squishing your ships or a big giant eye hovering over your homeworld that you truly shat yourself and wish you rather had to face the death star or imperial walkers...

which ability creates hands? telekinetic push?

That too actually...I was thinking of Malice when I wrote that...and Clairvoyance on the Revelation puts a giant eye on top of the planet you target....

- retarded ship movement (arcing turns)

- shield mitigation (works when shields are down, feels very ad-hoc)

- upkeep system (based on irreversible research and fraction of income, not number of current ships built like common sense would tell)

Actually have to disagree with this one. There is a big difference between having the ships and having the equipment to take care of them. So it can be logically concluded that the support you are paying for from your income points to how much support equipment, which cannot be carried by the ships themselves, is being covered. (ex. refit yards, fuel yards, ammo dumps, personnel, etc.)

Science things:

1. Faster than light travel

2. Random bits of magic (cap ship abilities especially advent)

3. Use of antimatter as a power source

4. Faster than light travel!!!!!!!

5. Faster than light travel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

6. What is a phase lane anyway?

Edit: 7. Things generally not orbiting

General things:

1. Stars FAR too small (perhaps this should be science as well)

2. Too little variation between planets

3. Too little variation within a planet (a whole planet a desert??? even at the poles????)

4. Upkeep system (mentioned above)

5. Stars FAR too close together

6. All races have basically the same structure in their fleet

7. Vassari not massively overpowered (after millennia of development)

8. Ship movement (in a gravity well)

9. Orbital civilian structures (OK trade ports and shipyards are sensible but really why not have labs and broadcast centres on the planet?)

SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF

Edit: Finally I have to disagree with this:

-----"I don't see how the 'ten-millennia journey' could be realistic. That seems like a little too much journeying."-------

This is the only way to travel between galaxies or even Solar systems in reality. If we ever make to other stars or galaxies in reality we will have to travel at (just) sub light speeds. Hundreds of Millennia will pass to anyone moving at slower speeds (for longer journeys) and centuries on the ship(s) (look up time dialation). END OF EDIT

I think   that having these things in game is fine. Perhaps there should be a note in the manual saying something like "This is not possible as we currently understand things" next to appropriate entries?

 

The point is, upkeep is a FRACTION of income. Therefore race with 2x income pays double the upkeep for THE SAME amount of ships as race with x income. GalCiv2 system is much more realistic, IMO.

Also, the upkeep research is irreversible decision, which is not only unrealistic (you can build supply logistic infrastructure, but you cant deconstruct it when it is not needed anymore?) but also bad gameplay-wise - when you get your butt kicked and loose a few planets and a fleet, you are done, because significant fraction of your already much lower income goes to support nonexistent fleet. In reality, if you dont have money to buy new fleet again, you would just fleet down (sell logistics infrastructure) and return to the earlier income state.

carriers seem to have an unlimited supply of strikeships and pilots.

but i understand its game mechanics.