Sibilantae

Well, on the point of language, I don't see how [I]any[/I] ship can [I]ever[/I] be called a super capital ship - how do you differentiate between "head" and "above-head"? It's not very logical. I think it's just come into use as in my last description. I don't have experience with Sins and can't glean enough from the trailers, gameplay movies etc. to find out whether Sins ships would even have this difference between two huge-ship types - but I'll trust others' judgment.

Alaric for the win! A duel is a battle between two people. I certainly wouldn't want my processor cores attacking and killing each other. My contribution otherwise is: Yes.

In HW2, I've always understood super capital ships to be battlecruisers and (in the mods) battleships. I actually think the term is a misnomer, since capital already means "head", eh? I think super capital equates "absolute mother of an uber-sized destructivator", or something similar to that. [quote]Eh first some of you really need to know what you are talking about before you post. [/quote] Am I one of those? I'm so ashamed! [quote]It is great everyone like me wants t

That said, I agree with Lightzy. Tactics embodies some micro, but by no means too much. Clickfests on CnC3 are micro, but the micro extends BEYOND tactics. That is why micro is called micro, and not tactics :P I mean, a tactical game might require lots of micro, but if that game has extremely good unit AI (as Sins does, I assume), then micro of the "clickfest" kind, and the type to which most people object, is eliminated while the more enjoyable "micro" of intelligent tactics remains. <b

I'm more than baffled, I'm outraged. What an [I]insult[/I] to tactics even to suggest that it is micro. What the hell would make one think that? To flank is not to micro. That's clear. Why would it be? Raymundus seems to have a point, though, but in the end it comes down to what flanking is. What does it mean to flank? Does it mean to tell your units, and I quote Fobok, "You, move left, now right, now take two steps forward, incoming! Take three steps back"? Of course not? It simply means: "

Hawk, it's great to hear your input, but to be entirely honest: [quote]Hi all one thing I think we forgetting is in home world the cpu did not have to also deal with income from a vast empire and all the ai that goes with that as well as pirates and black market as well. The map size of home world and home world 2 and home world cataclysm well local,[/quote] Why are you bringing this up again? Homeworld has passed out of the discussion. We've established that there's no real reason w

Sorry to keep coming with a reply, but I've heard that a demo for this game will be released about a month after US release. If you're hesitant about buying a game you're not sure you could play, simply delay buying it until the demo comes out :P that way you'll find out for sure. Have fun :)

In short, yes. I think you would enjoy this game very much :)

Though I've not played this either, it sounds to me like you could enjoy this as a total 4x, at least to begin with. I think one major difference between this and a true 4x is that the only way to win truly is through (at least) eventual military conquest. Diplomacy, economics, culture, etc seem to support the conquest idea on its own, unless there is a victory condition (as in Galciv 2) allowing 2/3rds domination by culture, or alliance with all factions... As to the RTS experience, th

If the 1 second delay were universal, the effect would cancel out except, as you say, for the fighters and bombers. And 1 second really isn't all that much of a difference, is it? I mean, sure you might say "every second counts" in tactical combat, but in the end it comes back to the fact that it all cancels out. Could you please explain how the long range attack craft have their balance screwed up? I don't quite understand your point there, though I see fighters and bombers (especially bomb

Major Stress provides a neat summary of what I think, adding of course the reasons stated for making the moving turrest an option. [quote]a 1-2 second delay between acquisition and first fire is an elegant solution, I feel.[/quote] I still think Lightzy's idea is an excellent, neat, and practical solution to the problem. His way leaves the option for an option, in my opinion, since no extra CPU processing would be required and any further rendering from the GPU would be minimal

I like both of your points. Anyone know what plural for "generalissimo" is? Surely not "generalissimi"? I think in short: Sins FOR THE WIN! Can't wait to verse some of you on multi, once I get Sins in April *disgusted with Aus release date while irrationally unwilling to order online*

[quote]It works *almost* that way, but don't forget that the graphics are tied to weapons "firing", which does the damage (am I making sense?). You'd have to re-write the code involved to include bringing the turrets to bear. [/quote] That's what I thought too... now I'm confused... Annatar said (the way I interpreted it) that the appearance of firing is completely independent to the firing itself. But Ron says the delay in the appearance of firing affects the calculation of firing,

[quote]Like I wrote in my post, this is the misconception. The physical appearance of the turret has absolutely nothing to do with the particle effects/damage dealing of the shot itself. [/quote] Then I back down :) [quote]Actually, an easier solution than lizzies would be to just make weapons firing a purely graphical occurrence, which can vary from ship to ship, and have damage be unlocked from the shots. (Which they already almost are...) There would be a slight oddity as th

[quote]The cacualtions it would take to do such a triggered event are so minor , the game may take another 30k of memory to do it.[/quote] Begging your pardon, sir, but the problem with adding this as an option is not the memory or processing power, it's the problem of desync in multiplayer matches. Following the assumption that a turret may only fire when lined up, the desync will be inevitable - as I see it, this isn't a matter of coding, it's of practicality. It's been estab

I agree with everyone. At last :P Though I'm just a bit confused by Annatar's latest post. I like Lightzy's idea with the set time for turret animations! Maybe the mesh question could be addressed in an expansion, or even an uber-mod?

I agree. I see micro as the inane ability to click faster than someone else, instead of intelligently managing units in combat, though this is bound to disagree with someone else :P I don't like clickfests, I like intelligence - if the ability to manage units in battle in an intelligent manner is what is required, I support it wholeheartedly. If those units are programmed (as it seems to be in this game... yes!) to behave intelligently, that's even better - i like to think of myself then as the

Ok then; sorry, I misunderstood - I thought that you disagreed with Ron about the inability of option-ness :P My bad. To answer your first question; my desktop always runs SC at the lowest possible levels in order to maximise smoothness - I run it windowed (it runs very well at high/highest levels on my lappy) and it still slows. The terrain is as undetailed as possible. I'm not sure, since I haven't played Sins, but I'd say the amount of motional detail at fully zoomed out level would

Point taken, Sir. Excuse my perpetuating the question, but my (admittedly somewhat weak - at the minimum specs level of SoaSE) desktop had much difficulty running SupCom at fully zoomed out levels with a total of about 500-600 units, and a little bit of trouble, though I didn't experiment too much, with a try-out of a low-level Warlords mod on HW2. Clearly it was the CPU that was having difficulty, since the GPU didn't have to render much more than little icons throwing little yellow dots at

Actually, there is also the difficulty of the difference in scale; how many ships could one have under Warlords (I had only a primitive version of the mod... please excuse me) at once?

YES! Thank you! I will support you guys to the ends of the earth. You support your customers, so why can't I do the same to you?

Sir Heflys, Please enlighten me; did Eviljedi form ships with turrets that had to wait to line up before firing, or was the effect purely cosmetic? If the former, then I back down and hide behind Ron :P If the latter, then my point stands.

Two question marks missing from above post; beg forgiveness :P I like my grammar.

Hi guys; I was just wondering; on some screenshots scattered online I have noticed that the stars around which the planets orbit tend to be nicely textured but somehow (for me) uninspiringly dull. Is this just on the (early) betas, or will it be in the final release as well? What do you guys think of making them considerably brighter, like those beauts in Nexus: the Jupiter Incident or some of the skirmish maps for Homeworld 2. Furthermore, what of a glare effect from these stars wheneve

Yeah, it's funny; I've always wanted something less than those beaut HW1 and 2 backgrounds but not totally black, or at least to make the stars themselves, in the distance, really vibrant as if you were looking into the night sky. That way, the stars could come really to resemble diamonds set in velvet, rather than just so many hard metallic points in a bleak sky...