Erog

" but thats a great deal of new work" well yes and no . . if the framwork is not flexable and would really need to be overhalled yes. . . If the game was set up well, not in a "get it working now" mode (which is common and not entirely bad) adding features like that should be relitively easy . . but since it is rather late in development I do not see movement happening. Though! makeing planet placement, content and overall use play a larger role in overall gameplay and tactics . .

But with ice planets near the outside and terran planets near the in? Must've been a trade off between getting minerals first or getting credits first. Good point . . it did not work because terrain planets are superior in everything . . If say Ice planets had high Crystal resources, and

It will reduce power usage and help save the environment (as well as our computers; running cooler = longer life). Funny, the minimal benifit is lost by a single (additional) powercycle, or by haveing all sorts of background programs running when the system should be idle. Ban Screensavers!! Where accumulated effects really DO addup . . some are rather not practacal or usefull . . (example you could "help save the environment" by killing all domestic cows off or making it a la

"Ion Cannon in the game?" WHY WHY WHY !!! leave Star wars out! There is a disabling weapon but is does not have to, and should NOT, follow the Star wars convention of ION = disabling.

Alternate "gameboard" elements are really needed . since at this point the game is nice but lack luster and this could hurt Longevity of the game. - A small moon could be a large military base OR a commerce center OR a mining operation etc. You only get one pick so pick well [and it can be leveled up over time?] - Lots of “small” asteroids in a system could force all ship movement to slow. (simple modifier) - A gas planet may have a primary moon, colonizeable and some minor moon

If you want to see realistic movement in a space environments done mostly right, check out the human Fighters in Babylon 5, Even the human Capital ships did a good job. (get an inertia less drive and all bets are off) I would guess it would depend on the tech. Armor on a large space ship I always found rather funny since the most effective armor typically is the most massive. If you don’t the most massive armor you have to fall back to shear volume or armor. (example high grade Ste

Erog, if you look at the description this is sort of what the Marza is supposed to be but it doesn't have the right range. The description says it specializes in long range attacks. Ok good enough, I did not see that . . but even then . . a larger missle ship would fit.

"And what bothers me the most is that the ship's main gun ( the 4 lasers ) can shoot in almost any direction, regardless of the ship's position" This is one of the parts I like . . Having Dealt with real lasers (and yes the burning kind) and know a bit about them (Holography and manufacturing – the little laser in you DVD burner is a powerful little bugger and can pop balloons - a bit of fun). Lasers are NOT projectiles! They NEED no barrel no antenna and do not need to look

Yes, and to address, no life = no culture. you should be allowed to start a colony in a vacant system and then see it decay or revert slowly if a nearby culture is too powerfull . . not instantly pop to some alternate one as soon is it is dropped.

I had this happen also, I wiped out all but the homeworld of a AI. Planets 2-3-4 jumps away still had the culture lines for a long long time and if I tryied takeing them over they reverted imedietly to AI. the AI's enpire was totaled, it has no more brodcasters and even planets far away from the AI's last planet where still impervious to all colonization. even though all 'life' had been wiped out for all of those planets for quite some time. Then a planet close to the homeworld allowed

Yes, I have made a few games in my time, and still mod or do modeling when asked. One game I made had a full physics engine very cool and a totally different way of playing (though my version played like the older naval game harpoon) I do not expect them to do that here. Also I have moded each of the homeworld titles to incorporate a “more” space like environment, with good results. Things are a bit tight in SINS though scale is skued badly (good for RTS) not good for any space sim <img src

Battle stations are a good idea, a ship made for defense with NO jump drive but can move in system (all that space/power goes to defense/offence systems) Expensive because of all the weapons/armor/shielding . . an liability because it has to say IN system. Possibly has to use system defense points? To keep things balanced. A missile capital ship? Made for stand off attacks, powerful at range weak close up. Possibly some utilities for the missiles Constant fire, full barrage (with

"Anyone with half a brain knows that Problem is, until we actually have to deal with space combat, we have NO CLUE what tactics are going to end up effective. We can theorize... but without any real purpose / funding behind it, its not going to be very good." But, really do they? Why do people latch onto Strangely romantic / Pop fiction WWII naval combat ?? people assume what is will be . . . the military is always relearning that one. Tech at the time makes ALL of the difference

The kol has a kind of resemblance to a B5 Omega with out the rotating segment, Complete with a win of smaller craft, beam weapons and the like. Not bad, but I still do not get the weapon differential, Energy weapons and projectiles and missiles have Very different characteristics and what we get is just really different graphics. But I really do not understand why BIG and “nasty” looking = powerful . . Possibly I am too old and have found out long ago it is the ones that do not “lo

"There is a large whiteboard in the room that has a big picture of a network of the relationship between each ship type that we all refer to while playing. It isn't a simple rock/paper/scissors diagram" Good to hear, rock/paper/scissors = nasty boring In war there is always the specialist but the bulk of the force is the generalist and that blows rock/paper/scissors concept entirely.

"Frigates - Very specialized roles: Such as combat, fighter defense, colonization etc... Cruisers - More powerful specialized ships: Good at combat but also have a few abilities. Battleships - A truly multi-role specialized combat ship: Dish it out and take it too, as well as having many varied abilities that make them the heart and sole of a fleet." They should really make up some new names for ship classes . . Frigates, Cruisers, Battleships mean nothing as these terms are use

but stardestroyers (and the supers) where catch all ships . . they all had the same strengths and weaknesses . . . rather boring. This is a RTS / 4x game (explore, expand, exploit, exterminate ) there should be fleets not 20x of the best single ship you can produce. again booring and will make the longevity of this game very short. Also what IS the time span (in game time span) we are talking about? Surely nothing like the turn based 4x there 100s / 1000s of years could go by

First I rather hate to bring up the ship definition thing, but it is relevant if the terms are to be used we need to use them correctly or simply make up new ones (this IS a space game and does NOT have to follow navy terms.) Any way [stepping out from lurking] Personally I rather like the mix of “capital” ships (there term) that are currently provided. A battleship that lasts long and is good at killing other “capital” ships. A Carrier that can project fighters/bombers to offe