You couldn't do much worse than seven suns when it comes to literature in general and space operas in specific.. It reads like the fevered imaginings of a 12 year old.. Try Alastair Reynolds or something.. good luck with the mod work though
It's cute but I won't call it good. Bored me pretty damn fast. Problem is, like most galciv, its an animated spreadsheet, not a game. It lacks the flair of genius that games like starcraft has. or master of orion 2 has. All races have the same tired old units which serve the same tired-ass functions (sure, one is a bit better than the other, but they're all the same, serving the same function), the huge majority of science upgrades give you commulative +% to this a
[quote]4. An ability to downgrade fleet logistics, maybe for free but takes time, and requires paying money again to upgrade. Haven't put much thought into it, but fleet logistics being too high will knock a player out who needs to recoup from a loss. It basically creates a snowballing effect.[/quote] Good suggestion on the face of it but it'll cause micromanagement hell.. It's only good for a situation where a player with many planets suddenly loses ALL his ships and
What difficulty are you playing on? easy? Let me tell you, whoever did diplomacy in this game though did a pretty retarded job, because playing on hard with 6+ facitons (yourself included) = all AIs allying against you every time. unless you're lucky enough to get two-three 'give stuff' missions in a row .. and even then, you suddenly get one of those 'kill structure' missions and lose loyalty and everything falls apart. its like nobody even tried to play this game
to be honest im a bit sorry i purchased this game. Like I was sorry I bought galciv2. not sure why I keep making these mistakes.. these games always have the same type of flaw.. they're too much like playing a spreadsheet.. there's very little game in there, and what there is is repetitive and bland without much interesting flavor/background to it. these guys just dont have the 'spark' blizzard have. dunno.
I'm pretty sure it would actually be much MORE expensive to maintain a station in orbit than on earth.. solar bombardment, stellar dust particals.. a TON of dangerous radiation.. constant shipping of necessary stuff from the planet.. What irks me is the 'solar systems' in sins. I mean, with something as dumb as that they could have just completely dropped the pretense of using words like 'solar systems' and called it .. I dunno, 'sack of orbitless motionless planets'. To be hon
That whole "flak = awsome" stuff is .. meh. Just divide a regular cobalt frigate fleet in 2 or 3, then you'll be firing at the flaks all the time with superior firepower for lower cost. sure, the flak guy can divide his fleet also, but you'll be simply ignoring that, and still targetting group by group. I'd make a replay, but im far too lazy. There are deep design problems with this game that changing stats around a bit wont fix.. its not as elegant as s
"Again: 30 Lrms *vs* 25 Lrms and 5 Hoshinkos: Combined arms should win every time." whats the cost in resources, research costs, fleet cap and time to make 30 lrms vs the costs of making 25 lrms and 5 hoshinkos? Maybe you haven't played against a GOOD spammer? IE the kind that uses an effecient and quick build strat and has a lot of ships up very quickly and uses them well. Because if you take it all into account, in terms of research costs and production cost
[quote]You all know them, and you all hate them. You call them ship spammers. For most of you that word probably has a meaning. But let me explain it to those of you who have never had a game ruined by a spammer. A ship spammer is someone who build a crapload of one type of ship (such as 150 LRMs) and attacks. I am writing this fresh from a particularly stinging defeat at the hands of a ship spammer. It is important to know that these people CAN be beaten, and playing a game with a ship s
Anyone? surely if you know the game well u can solve this for me and if you don't know of a way it would bother you too?
Well thanks, but that doesn't completely answer my question :/
When I make a fleet, I like to set its engagement range and fleet cohesion and so on (like tight formation for advent fleets with guardians and illuminators), but when I park the fleet somewhere and build ships, they join the fleet automatically, and now instead of engage enemies in gravity well, the engagement rules says "mixed" because of the new ships how do I make fleet behavior stick when new ships are added to the fleet? is there a way to change the default behavior? &nb
Depends on the map, but by the time you have a good number of cruisers that can hold off any LRM rush you're already a few minutes past the LRM rush...... a good TEC rusher would have ground you to paste already, long before.
[quote]In fictional terms, would that really be any better than just tacking on more shield generators? And in gameplay terms, would it be any different? Anti missile guns work great in Nexus, they work great in SOTS, but in SINS it's kind of below your scale. [/quote] uhh.. because shields would defend against everything, and anti-missile fire only hits missiles. How could u possibly miss that? it would be completely and utterly different in all respects. Shields are
I'd think the only reason a ship would be facing its opponent to fire a missile would be to give it native acceleration, but in sosa ships don't move, so i doubt it would make a difference. I mean, all you have to do is drop the missile down a hatch facing the right way and have it ignite after a couple of seconds. :P
the only problem with LRMS is that there's no defense against missiles. give flak frigs and cap ships an anti-missile cannon and have done with it. The anti-missile attack should also have area effect, otherwise its likely that half your ships will fire on the same damned missile the way this system is set up, and the effect will be lost.
Realistically is not a great word to use, but physics are physics and sense is sense. So if we take into account the technology levels in this game, for example (IE no completely invincible shields that nothing can penetrate ever), ships in combat would be moving constantly. not to mention aiming turrets on the ships. Also, I'll bet that any capital ship will deploy self-propelled weapon systems outside of its hull for better coverage and some risk minimization. In any cas
Anyway, you can explain away forever why it would be cumbersome and impossible to use moving ships and actual tactics in combat, but seriously.. anyone who looks at this who isn't pre-brainwashed sees... nothing. stuff staying in place with not even moving turrets and firing at odd angles. resulting in a game which has no tactics. If thats the focus of the game, then fine, no problem, but then why not allow ships to move? I mean, its completely an aesthetic thing in any case no? At lea
Dude, that was one of the most clueless posts I've ever seen. How does a huge spaceship dodge incoming fire? with bursts of propulsion, duh :) You do realise how tiny any projectile would be in comparison to SPACE, right? and how that even if a ship uses the mildest of random propulsion, no aimed, non tracking fire will ever hit it, right? unless if its by total accident or complete area saturation.
"It would have been nice to see some major differences between the races but thats the difference between a world altering game like starcraft and a game that rates 8.5" Amen. Taking the easy way out with subtle differences is MEH. Creating 3 different factions that play COMPLETELY differently, so much that each has their own interface design, and having them all well balanced is what a work of art game is about. I hope that with some of the update content the
Ron, that solution is pretty ugly I think, and not more simple than mine. It creates 'visual desynch'.. a ship loses hitpoins and can actually die without anything even being seen to fire at it. It can create a whole host of ugly situations. a 1-2 second delay between acquisition and first fire is an elegant solution, I feel. Extremely easy to calculate, makes the turret rotation graphic optional (and would not be noticable to anyone who has it turned off. after all, its 2 seconds)
my guess is a couple of days.. Think of how clogged the lines will be straight after 'release' time.. unreliable, constantly disconnecting, top speed 2kbps downloads.. I think I'd rather wait a week :/
tactics is always micro. A GOOD rts would remove unnecessary micro by MINIMIZING activated unit abilities and using mostly passive skills and traits to differentiate units, but would generally have to keep focus on manouvering smartly. If the game is about sending the most biggest units as fast as possible then it ends up being a strictly strategic game. If thats the goal, then its just fine, but RTS gamers need their tactics. Its what makes the game fun for us -- outmanouver
I guess I think shots leaving the barrels at weird angles is frankly embarrassing, and is kind of a priority graphical glitch. Anything that could be done to remedy that is good. If the system is written so that the second units get within range they open fire, regardless of any positional information or whatever, then its a step backwards from other modern games, where guns generally aim in the direction of fire. If we're talking about strictly adding animations to th
Er, then my question remains. What does damage output listings actually GIVE you if different ships fire at different speeds? whats the point of even telling you accurately how much damage a ship does per salvo?
