You can control Gas Giant systems by colonizing the various moons in order to have the "mini-planet" effects cumilate enough to allow a sizeable base being placed not on Gas Giants but with Gas Giant systems. Love your moon idea. Human players/other AI's might be influenced by bounties as well. I thought this was the main reason for the bounty...
Looks at Warcrafts numbers sold...13+ million to date. Yeah, I think I'm okay with that. Sure, but they had solid ground beneath the Orcs. You don't... When I first found Sins forums it didn't seem money is ALL you see. There was a genuine wish to create a great 3D space opera.
The superweapons in Sins can't target individual ships. If you think about it, there's really no way a weapon hundreds of millions of kilometers distant could hit a moving target like a ship. That's understandible, but can it destroy my preccccioussssss?! As I wrote, I'd hate to see the ship I "fell in love with" destroyed in one blow, no chance to defend itself of flee...
While I don't like superweapons I guess they can be somewhat balanced. The real problem arrives when you mix RPG elements with superweapons. For instance; having a big gun destroy three of your fifth level capital ships that you trained so carefully with one blow. THAT is a problem. As long as the ships (bots, worms, whatever) are something you have no attachement to it won't hurt you too much to see them destroyed in swarms. As soon as you grow an attachement to some of them (
. Nexus: The Dread of new "3D" space games Best 3D space dance yet. I was hoping Sins was heading in that direction; full 3D movement BUT with far less micromanagement possible. Meaning fleet formations and fleet orders with everything else being done by the AI. Leaving me the time to behold the beauty. Sadly it is becoming Warcraft with no visible terrain.
I definitely agree with Karma and Polluxo. But they are fighting a lost battle it seems. I'd just like to repeat that if the AI is not 3D aware (able to use it effectively) and everything is reduced to a 2D plane than PLEASE limit the player to it as well. It's either all 3D or no 3D (I'm only speaking about movement).
Perhaps they shouldn't? Than again, trying to save your behind by building defenses is something completely different from trying to demolish something to earn a buck. Normal people usually don't think too much about money when bullets are flying by their ears. Lord of War [movie] excluded. They do think how to survive and are prepared to do whatever it takes for it.
My suggestion is to make the 'scuttle' command either innefective during combat (in the same gravity well), OR make the refund % influenced by any damage the structure might have taken. I'd go for both actually. So that if you started the deconstruction earlier and an enemy force jumps in the deconstruction will cease. So your refund would only be what was deconstructed before the fleet arrived. I'm sure people have better things to do when under attack than
Notably at the moment, the majority of opinions in this thread support either the old inhibitor or a compromise. Few have supported the current system. Yes, but the trick is to spit over all systems and propose a new one, as I did. Kidding.
I'd like it most when an inhibitor would have a range and would block all enemy jumps in it's area. This way you could place it to an exit point (area) to another of your systems and it would prevent the enemy to bypass it, meaning no grasshopping from system to system. This way you would have multiple inhibitors, probably one for each of your neighboring systems. One could be placed to an entry point of an enemy system and prevent an immediate retreat but this would at least m
I guess the absence of a bonus a penalty... Anyway, who would colonize a planet if it represents a drain?
Colony ships colonize, light frigates anti-matter drain, LRM frigates have a bombardment power, hoshiko's use it for repairs, command ships use it, and even Kodiaks use it for their sprint power. Cool, I wasn't aware of that.
However, 3D doesn't add anything substantial to the game and nobody seems able to explain adequately why it would. You are kidding, right? Seeking a fleet's weakest point in a sphere-like fashion and sending a strike force to that spot anywhere around it is something completely different from going left or right around it. Especially if good 3D formations and fleet behaviour were introduced. On a planet scale this can all take an even more important role. Jus
AFAIK the non-capital ships have no antimatter. Since it's only used for specials, non-existent on all but capitals.
So in short games like ranked, they might not be able to research it all. Which is as it should. If there was any justice in this world one shouldn't be able to research it all in long games as well.
Did it have a chance of winning? Or did it just decide that saving some is better than loosing all? Oh, and the TW AI has been quite improved for M2TW - not to mention that the modders fine-tuned it.
I didn't know a capital ships hard cap is in... I was hoping the game would limit them in other ways, like vunerabilities, upkeep etc..
The only reason AI's are better at TB games is because they don't have to process their AI in real time, IMO. And, even then, they really do suck because programmers just can't match human player's adaptive and creative capacity. The AI is getting better and better. TW series AI has improved dramatically since RTW - both the strategic (turn-based) and tactical (real-time) AI. I think the AI in RT games should only evaluate its position in bearably lo
Yes, in the end it's the gameplay that counts. The pseudoscietific explanation can be found for anything. Even for the weird AM loss when the ships jump. Not that I can think of any.
Rather make it possible to place structures in 3d and orient your fleet in full 3d. This is what I'm expecting in a space game, not flat pseudo 3d. I think we all agree we'd rather have that. But only the player having the possibility and the AI being too stupid is the worst option IMO. It's far better to not have anyone use full 3D movement and have good 3D formations. Otherwise I can't agree with the "the AI won't be able to compete anyway" comment
I'd just like to say that if the AI is not using 3D movement and it's not possible to place defensive structures in 3D it would be best to not allow any 3D movement. Giving the player an edge over the AI is VERY undesirable. This wouldn't limit the possible use of 3D formations in any way.
I think the main problem is that it really doesn't add as much tactical depth as some people claim it does (up or down, you still can't get any further away from the planet than you would on a 2d plane since it's a spherical arena), so it really isn't worth the added complexity. It would add a HUGE lot to the believability of the game. Sins promised to bring the best space feeling yet than it went for the same limitations others have. I guess it will at least
the other thing that they found out is that if you recycle the nuke material you can use it for 20 years and end up with a handful of dirt. but believe it or not that was stopped by carter. Any link to that? Because USA is not the only country that uses nuclear material and I'm surprised nobody did it. Recycling/storing the waste is profitable now as well, but if you c
we figuared out how to stop all meltdowns. but thanks to clinton and his attempt to save welfare we will never be able to use it. The cost of ANY welfare is a spit in the sea comapred to the cost of Iraq war. Even the money needed for ITER fusion reactor is a spit in the sea, yet it was pretty hard to find the finances. 5 billion dollars for ITER. How many for welfare
I personally like Capital vs Capital fights more than Frigates. Its usually me with 24+ and the computer with 2-3. I edited the text files to make Capital ships produce faster, cost less, and increased the overall Fleet Capacity to support it all. So basically you changed the capital ships into frigates with special abilities... And removed the capitals from the game.
