Red_Priest

When I started this post I had no idea what a touchy subject this has become. My sentiment is similar to Stu1005's [quote]i bought in right at the start and thought how great the game would be until the beta 4 release featuring the Vasari . Now im extemely worried about the Advent and how similar they will be. BTW i wont get involved in a debate with the Pro game fan club . I purchased im entitled to an opinion if you dont like it too bad. ITS simply an opin

[quote]now, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you in fact do not know Caael.[/quote] Admittedly, I do not know Caael and I was only addressing his specific post. [quote]this was one concern that the broad sweeping "similarity" argument cannot hold onto. ships are diversified heavily, its just not readily apparent when you just look at the pictures of the ships and not having a 1v1 corrospondence is not going to happen. its masked, but even game

[quote]*sigh* ron, antagonistic minorities like Caael will always exist, you just gotta do your best to ignore them. I've said repeatedly that this is a valid point from certain qualified standpoints. but as of yet every single complaint has been far too overgeneralized. Now, having this discussion would be lovely if we were slightly more *specific* about what is truly wrong (telling me a big blanket "they're carbon copies" tale will get me to quickly ignore you, I'm one of

I think Fleischwesen has elaborated on most the main point I was trying to make in the original post. The comparison of SINS with age of empires is a good one. Without getting all wrapped up in the details about starcraft, I think that there are even much better examples of tremendous diversity amongst different factions. I mentioned C&C generals because the GLA in it have no air units (other than through general's powers). In C&C 1, the toughest NOD tank was weaker than the weakest GDI tank and

It's been a long while since I have posted. And for what it's worth I would like to voice a gripe, which probably nothing can be done about at this stage (and I suspect others have griped about it too but I cannot find forum search. Anyhow, I am disapointed that the races are so similar. Why are there functionally equivalent ships for Vasari and TEC? I have noticed that there are differences between the ships, but they are rather minor. Differences were one thing that was pretty cool wi

As for your suggestion, there are already tecs that increase the amount you get from freighters, the expanded cargo hold tecs, so that would possibly be redundant. I know you can increase the cargo size of refinery freighters, but from what I gather (and I could so easily be wrong on this) a mine can only supply a freighter with resources every so often. This would mean that the mine itself limits how many resources you can get from it (via freighters) i

While I am admittedly a little too lazy to do the math, it seems to me that researching increased mining speed is really not worth it. Because there is only so much crystal and metal per mine, I end up having less crystal to mine by spending crystal researching how to improve the speed at which it is mined. Unless I have been focusing on mining research alone (which is probably a bad idea), by the time I can spend the resources to research the most advanced levels of mining, the mines will not h

I want some magical AI to know how I want my battles to go, but I'm not going to wish for it. I don't think it is in any way unfeasible to set up a tactics governor. I have, admittedly at a rather abstract level, worked out several ways by which AI's could be built to do this. If you already had a more generic AI that assigned weightings to the different tactics it engages in then it would one easily have players change the weighting for different types

So, yes, I guess I want your magically tactical governor, or whatever you call it, to be told in advance when certain ships should maneuver. But what the hell is that and what are you proposing? And still, What do you think about this advantage that is gained by micro-managing combat? Very Roughly, what I have in mind for the tactical governor would be more for defence than offence. This is not to say that I don't think it would be used for

I think that the question itself may be confused. If you don't want tactical decisions to come into play and just want the numbers themselves to work out the victory then play GalCiv2. Its a great game, but I think the developers of sins are trying for something different here. Are you suggesting that the range of tactical options should be limited so that people cannot make either tactically brilliant or tactically stupid moves? Consider the following: I take my fleet of 5 shi

Actually, I always play on low resources and the info for setting it when you create a new game just says that it indeed only affects the starting ammount of resources. But I may agree with you that my concerns may be resolved if the option was available to reduce the rate by which you obtain resources (and to reduce the pirate fleet numbers respectively). I am sure other issues of balance would need to be adjusted, but it would allow players to use lots of ships or to only have a few.

Problem with reducing the number of ships is that in small maps, you'd end up with waaaay to few units. While in large maps you end up with lots more, at least it balances out because you need to use them in more places. I don't see how you would have waaay too few units. Too few for what? Remember that your opponent would also have fewer units as well. There are simply some things I can do with 100 ships I just can't

I agree that the game should not by any means go down to the scale of Nexus (which is a cool game in itself), but I think it could go a lot closer to COH. I find that much of the eye candy in COH is wasted since I never zoom in close anyway. But I think this is somewhat confusing the issue. I am not claiming that Sins needs more micromanagement in its tactical combat, but that it should make the battles and empire to be easier to manage by reducing the number of ships. I am in some agreem

Just because the game engine allows for "epic battles" does not mean that they should be added. The question I raise is precisely why more ships should be thought of as better. What does "epic battle" mean anyway? What if they made the game so that instead of building individual ships you build huge fleets with each click of the button (like Rome or Medieval total war)? Would that make it so that the battles are even more "epic"? Since you usually have to zoom out so that ships are represented b

One suggestion I would like to make, though I suspect it may not be popular with a lot of people is, is to make ships even more expensive, so that each ship will be more valuable to the player. The main reason why I think this would be good is that it makes battles and the organizing of one's empire generally somewhat more manageable. The scope of the game is huge, but that does not mean that each fleet needs to be as large as it is. The same scope can be had by significantly shrinking the fleet

None of the R/S/P matters if battles require attention which you cannot give. As I have stated elsewhere. I also think that the ships need a little more specialization (so that there is a point to having different kinds of ships). However, if that is introduced to make a big difference then you will lose every battle that is going on while you are conducting some other battle at the same time (or while you are simply managing your empire). Everyone knows how to make a decent rock/scisso

Topic: Why do I have so much metal resource? Topic: What are cruisers for? Topic: What is the significance of the different weapons? I have enjoyed the game thus far, though I can tell that the balancing and the like needs work. As indicated above, I have three questions. These are not necessarily criticisms or suggestions of corrections quite yet. Perhaps I am just playing the game weird or missed out on some important aspect of the game or strategy in it. Fi

Suggestion: Tactical combat that does not require too much attention Like others, I have also been looking for more rock-scissors paper in the combat part of the game. BUT!!! I am afraid that if you really have to give a lot of attention to how you move your ships around in combat to make sure you put the right ships against each other, then I think the game comabt will not be manageable either. More often than not, I find myself getting attacked in all different area

I think the few logistics slots available is a good thing. It forces you to actually expand and not just turtle at a few planets. If you could just load up on the research centers, and reseource acquiring upgrades on one planet then there is little point to making yourself vulverable by expanding. As the game stands right now, you can stock up on research centres at your home base (to a small degree), but it would mean that you did not spend the resources on ships to capture new areas and you pu