not really, its simple as programming some conical regions into the ship and seeing if you can fit a ship into each one (sounds like up to 3, one for each side, at this point) AFAIK each weapon will have it's own cone of fire. So to compute which position in a large group of ships (cosidering the ship would be able to move freely among the ships
thing is that this is a very offensive based playing style, if I want to play defensive (say, to wait for reinforcements) I want to be able to turn this off rather easily Yes, some sort of "hold position" option would be nice. I don't think this highest damage dealt includes moving the ship (it could be really hard for the AI to compute the highe
This all seems phenomenal! Especially the part where the ship (AI) will try to orient itself so that the most damage potential is used... I guess this must be pretty hard to achieve (programming-wise) in full 3D!
Is there a sensory tech research in the game? I guess an older sensor could have a margin of error, but the better they get...
I really detest games where you can send in a single innately powerful unit and take out a portion of an opposing army because its supposedly some superhuman "hero"... I agree. This is (IMO) the same problem as with superweapons. Heavy weaponry is ok while star killers or similar can take the fun out of the game.
Your arguments are not contributing to the topic and there are people here that wants to contribute to the topic but does not care to see your constant insults to one another. You might as well be spamming the forums. There were no arguments. I asked him
I LOVE the sreenies... And can hardly wait for the game.
ok, your now just acting stubborn. you've just been called a noob by more people than I care to count, and you still think there is an arguement to hold DESPITE not experiencing the game enough to know. this pathetic arguement of yours is void. That "more people than you care to count" is 2. And one of them is refering to his own interp
I'd go for tactical RTS. sounds silly, but something like MOO3. MoO3 is exactly what Sins is trying to achieve - a strategy that has no turns. Except that Sins seems to aim FAR FAR higher, which is phenomenal. I loved the concept of MoO3, but the result was... (trying not to be nasty) dissapointing.
This is a silly disagreement... the distinction between tactics and strategy is scale. I'm happy to grant that the HW games didn't have strategy if the TBS people will grant that most of their games don't have any tactics. Tactics are often as deep and complex as most strategies. They're typically on a smaller scale and over a shorter period of time. But the natur
no... I have a wide and very complex arguement that I'm too damn lazy to bother with kid SEE THE WORLD FIRST, dont start talking about something that you PURPOSELY AVOID. I still see no arguments. I hope you find some.
Tactics are the way that your ships fight and maneuver. It is things like what to attack (specifically), what formations to use, how to maneuver, and where to go. Strategy is the plan behind these movements. Is it a feint to draw his forces away? Is it an attempt to cripple his resource collection? Is it an assault designed to kill the MS? <br/
... come back once you've won a match of MP (not if you've gotten beaten, or lost by a huge margin) and surely you'll understand. I'm not taking time to explain to you something that you aren't going to believe anyway. You know you have no arguments. Stop trying to make a valid point without actually explaining it. You're just making an arse
but you haven't seen multiplayer, so your missing half of the game. you need to play it if you want to tell us whether or not the game has strategy Perhaps you could tell me how it does have more strategy in MP? Or are you satisfied by blaming my repulsion to MP for everything? Personally I can't imagine how a game can have more strategy
God forbid, that when developers create a whole universe, in which they feel has the potential to become a series of games, they make the story linear to keep consistency! Do you imagine TW series to only allow you to take one path - for instance the path of the history as it really happened? Oh, it would be consistent, but it would be a crappy g
As far as I knew, neither Homeworld 1 or 2 fights were over after one engagement. I guess I'm answering to both Inert and Schematic... No, HWs don't have a single fight, but neither do they have a strategy behind the battles. There is no empire building, all they have is a story. A LINEAR story. I like their story a lot, but that's all t
and as for an example? HW2. HW&HW2 are no strategy games. The only strategic element they have are the ships you build because they were transported into another battle. One fight does NOT equal strategy. In fact even games that require tactics are rare. In HW you actually have to (well, it pays off) create formations and such, so it has
I disagree although I do believe the biggest inhibitor of strategy in games currently is lack of scope and differentiation Ok, you're fully entitled to disagree. Care to share the example of an RT game that actually had strategy instead of tactics? As I said it could only be MoO3, but even MoO3 was quickly forgotten because of other prob
So far no real time game was successfull at creating enough time for it to be a strategy. Perhaps MoO3 was the closest but it had so many other problems that it just never came through... So Sins will more or less be the first one or so it is promised. We have yet to see. So until now - I'd say turn based. From Sins on... we'll see. EDIT; speaking from a personal viewpoint: I think the prospect of an epic real time empire building is something we are all looking for. I
Blair, from how you describe the surface infrastructures are simplified, reminds me of SotS's abstracted Terraforming/Infrastructure/Construction sliders... I wonder if they're in similar spirit... It isn't really similar. In SotS you set the sliders and decide which field you want to develop most/less/least. The main difference is that at some
SotS is a great game, but as every existing game it has it's downsides. 2D and oversimplified planetary management being two.
why were these not posted on gamespot and instead some of the most horrible least flattering screens are? True... Those at Gamespot are horrible. Bad commercial.
Is 10 months really that far off? HELL YEAH!
What do you mean "soon"? It's August 2007...
