Annatar11

Since LRMs are the counters to defenses (LRMs are countered then be ships) would this make defenses much more powerful then before and LRMs much weaker. This of course also depends very much on the point cost of these defenses. Logically, if it would be as powerful as you describe you should be able to place very very few of them, and with good reason. If there would be a missile platform that could reach LRMs, I can easily see it costing

kosc mines love you to death The worst kind of all..

Those were quite cool, I will admit

I think for the Kol/Marza, their main weapons (beams/missiles) are the only non-free firing ones. All the lasers/autocannons on all the capitals always seem to free fire at whatever if they can't engage their primary target. It's easy enough to test too, since the first cap builds free Let me know what you find, if you get to testing it before I do (about 4 hours till I'm home from work <img src=

Nah, anything that could remotely scout a system would give you all the benefit of information and no risk, and it would trivialize scouting after the first 10-15 minutes when you're mapping out every planet. Especially anything that can scan more than one system, because that would eliminate any chance of a trap. Trap being leaving a few ships to bait the enemy into attacking a seemingly weakly defended planet, leaving your main fleet one jump away at the edge of the grav well and wait

From my experience, kryo is correct, if you tell the Kol to attack a specific target, it will turn to it and hit it with the beams, it will not use the beams on any other target while turning. I've never seen it behave differently. The Kol and the Marza are, I think, the only two capitals that prefer to be facing the target, the other capitals seem to prefer broadsiding and don't have much in terms of frontal firepower. I really like this about the capitals though, that they have weapon

Likewise in 3-d space you would logically have a 3-d minefield, instead of planar. A planar minefield would indeed be quite useless

But what role? Well for one, it cannot be medium range heavy hitting, thats what Gauss are for. It cannot be total range anti-fighter or anti-small ship (bombers)... or rather it can but have different advantages/disadvantages. Why can it not be long range anti-fighter? Advantages: allows your hangars to focus mainly on bombers, makes it less 'necessary'

I've played a short game only with it on, where nobody had more than 2 planets (Pandemonium is a really weird map ), so I can't really fully comment on its usefulness. I'll launch a big map against AIs tonight after work, since the AI seems to be doing quite a bit better and that'd give me more chances to play around with the cruisers and the new selection based empire tree <img src="http://images.stardoc

no kidding!! 4 isn't even a real number!! it is a composit of 2's (just like eet is a composit of sqirls) 4 is simply 2 squared, like if you say "nazi" you realy mean "Hitler" 5 is a much more solid number, it is the number of fingers on a person's hand, it is a prime factor. And SINGLE HANDEDLY (no other numbers) makes the triple digited number we know as 225, wich is also a very nice solid number. so we shoul

Combat AI observation post patch: The better AI logic to apply DPS seems to glitch fairly frequently when the enemy has repair platforms. I've just played a game, and several times the AI seemed to calculate that gauss platforms would be destroyed by missiles already launched (presumably) and *all* the ships in the fleet switched to the next platform, but the original never got destroyed because it was repaired just enough prior, so it was sitting at ~50hp and I had to manually tell my

In multiplayer I had a game with Craig where we all inadvertantly allied and the game ended. *shakes head* Hippies!

I noticed that some planetary upgrades activate before completion. For instance I upgraded my logistics and was able to build more structures well before it was even underway (I had other upgrades in progress at the time). It works this way with research, too. For example, if you queue a research of a new ship hull, you'll be able to queue production of the new ship right away before the research completes. But as far as I can tell, the production (

Giving the game some sort of sensor system could be interesting. Stars, nebulae, line of sight/proximity to celestial objects could affect it, perhaps. You could have research techs to increase sensor strengths in those environments, and the scout could become useful in an attack fleet as, logically, it would have the most sophisticated sensor systems. Just, for the love of god, don't give grav wells fog of war <img src="http://images.stardock.com/gc2/T_DL/smiles/Tongue.gif" border=0 al

Changes in bounty on other empires I actually like seeing this, as long as it stays text-only on the bottom of the screen like it currently does, I really don't need/want a sound effect and voice message for it or anything, but it saves me the trouble of looking at the diplomacy screen each time a pirate raid happens to see if I have the most bounty or not. Seeing those change notices gives you an idea already, as long as you remember <img src="http://im

Those are some nice looking changes! Looking forward to giving it a shot. My favorite line of the whole thing was probably "Lag should be dramatically reduced"

as well as the fact that the faster ships in a fleet will happily rush off to their doom (fighters and bombers excluded.) Fleets need to stick together period to improve their survivability. Quoted for emphasis. Although the current fleet formation makes it quite 'packed', ideally your Cobalts won't charge into an enemy fleet leaving all your other ships behind, and then get slaughtered because they're the only targets the enemy has in range <img src="ht

Considering that most current frigates are fitted with missiles vs a small partol boat from WW1/2 would do no damage to a battleship from the same era. Reading comprehension ftw

No, those 2 Cobalts you start with are, indeed, equivalent to 'light tanks' to fit the tank analogy Now, a better analogy would be to compare current naval frigates with current naval battleships/capital ships. Considering that most current frigates are fitted with missiles, they surely can inflict some damage on the larger/more powerful battleships! So it's very much not out of the rea

I agree that a little more variety in defensive structures would be nice, because right now you know that all you're going to see is a mass of gauss platforms, a hangar or two, and some repair platforms That said, as with most suggestions about things to add, we really don't know anything about other races and their units/structures and how unique they'll be. The TEC supposedly isn't meant to ha

Where there are mines, there must be a way to deal with them other than sending your ships through to detonate them, like ships that can remotely detonate/diffuse them in some fashion. And then it wouldn't matter how large the mine field is, only protecting your diffusing ships, which would probably be high on the target priority of the enemy In theory, that is..

I think the game needs a lot more units both Destroyers and Battlecursers. The game also needs bigger fleet supplies to allow for larger fleets. On large multi-solar system maps, it's actually quite easy to amass fleets in the several hundreds of ships. On one map I played with 5 solar systems, 4 players. Each player started in their own 8-planet system and the central had some crazy number of planets. I easily had 8 capitals (320 fleet supply poin

a better question is: who WOULDNT want to be seen riding a pink space pony!? Ooh, ooh, me me! *jumps up and down waving his arms*.

Hi, there... it's called an analogy. There are times when one must take one's own advice. Assuming tank is analogous to capital ship, find me a ship in game that's analogous to 'guy with gun'. The closest you'll come up with is trade ship/colony ship/fighter squadron, and in that case the analogy holds amazingly well. However, everything other than those two ships is not analogous to 'guy with gun', and thus your analogy becomes severely flawed.

Oh, neat! I'll give that a shot. Thanks! I need more time to play to find all this stuff