Bobucles

The fleet size option changes the global population limits, not the AI. Small fleet reduces the pop cap by 25% across the board, and large increases it by 25%. This, along with the other game options is set in the gameplay.constants file(if you're modding).

"I can't see the ships, therefore make the weapon ranges shorter"? Since your complaint is purely about the aesthetics, why would you want to change the entire flow of combat in a gravity well to fix that? Might I instead suggest making the ships larger? Homeworld 2 had an option that deliberately skewed the ship sizes to make them more visible on the field.

[quote]The amount of destructive power we can mount in a tiny object or project over long distances is enormous RIGHT NOW and since humans always eagerly develop new destructive toys, shooting down anything in the far future will be far from hard in any case whatsoever.[/quote] Yes, there is a great destructive potential to be had, that no known material can withstand. But there is also a great deal more dead weight to soak it all up. Unlike military weapons on our planet, weight allowances a

[quote]In space, building larger things is a WAY easier.[/quote]Is that really true? Ships aren't built in a galactic vaccuum (pun intended). Our own planet still has remarkable manufacturing power that could have great use producing ships. Colonies are going to have their own manufacturing power as a necessary tool for survival. In fact, you aren't going to get anywhere in space without first establishing some sort of space factory on your homeworld. These factories are not simply going to s

You're wasting nukes on fighters? Hot. Damn. Let loose the squadrons! I just might win this war after you run your stockpiles dry turning your own home system into a nebula, and it'll only cost me a few squadrons of convicts. It is important to keep in mind that wars are political in nature. Wars simply do not happen without a reason to fight, or the resources to fight, and that means you need a developed sci fi world to go with it. While the potential of weapons is constrained by rea

Punitive game features are a bad idea, mmkay? Especailly as you propose it. Games are not a mud slinging competition. They're made for fun.

I'm also a bit worried about the high cost. That isn't all up front, is it? That'll make it nearly 15K creds and 2K resources! A moderate fleet can be had for that kind of scratch.

I have tried a modded capital ship with over 10 strike craft squadrons. As advent. Do you know how long it takes to fill out a single carrier? Forever!

Hmm. I can think of one ship type with enormous firepower, designed to fire at large stationary targets. It'd be perfect for shooting up a starbase.

[quote]If an enemy suddenly introduces a strike fighter equipped with anti-capital ship missiles. Its [b]unbelievably cheap cost would liquidate your fleet with sheer numbers.[/b][/quote]Fixed that for you!

I don't like the idea of making a dozen different flavors of small ships with guns. "small vs. small" and "small vs. large" covers most of what an armed fighter is built for. How about some actual utility behind the fighter bay? Drone squad: Similar to a certain scout craft's ability, these squadrons stick around a sector after you leave. They rapidly decay and can be attacked by interceptors, but will provide sector detail until they are gone. Planetary assault craft: Armed w

Sorry, secret cow levels are strictly Blizzard's territory.

That sounds like a very narrowly designed drone ship. First off, you need to have accurate intel so that you can designate targets. Intel is the most vital aspect of war, as it determines the best strategy to take. That's no small task to take on, especially given that an enemy will try to deliberately hide and mislead you. Secondly, you need reliable drones to pull it off. Wasn't there a great battle in WW2, where a spoofed British navy was attacked by a spoofed German assault? It wa

[quote]However missiles achieve a 'correctable' solution to the 'launched projectile' problem by being in the middle road between cost and reliability and responsive hits, as they can be self guided, as well as self-propelled, and therefor are more cost effective and energy efficient.[/quote]If a weapon has enough time to sense its inaccuracy and then enough thrusting power to correct its movement, then you have enough time to sense it and respond accordingly (even if computers have to do it)

[quote]Why, then, do people invent theoretical space fighting machines? Most of the resources available in space are available in abundance, and there is certainly no lack for room.[/quote]Bullshit. First off, ABUNDANCE of resources may be closely linked to AVAILABILITY of resources, but they are not the same. Just because you have resources coming out of your ass, that is no indication of your ability to utilize those resources (modern examples, diamonds in Africa, oil

[quote]You get more powerful weapons, again and again, placing more and more power in the hands of an individual. You get guns which can punch holes through tanks. Then level houses. Hand grenades which can destroy entire city blocks. And it continues.[/quote] This is assuming that defensive technology stays at a deadlock, and offensive technology advances without it. I dunno about you, but just a few years back there was nothing short of a tank that could stop a high caliber round. Now ceram

[quote]But imagine that this state of affairs continues. Technology continues to evolve, but mankind stays where it is now. You get more powerful weapons, again and again, placing more and more power in the hands of an individual. You get guns which can punch holes through tanks. Then level houses. Hand grenades which can destroy entire city blocks. And it continues. Pistols which can release energies comparable to that of a star. Maybe not technology which is weaponized - power plants which

[quote]Do you know what kind of damage you can do just by dropping a giant rock from orbit? Now image stuff like railguns. With nuclear tips. And that's a primitive concept.[/quote]Do you know what kind of damage can be done with a penny dropped from the empire state building? Or with a simple truck? A gun? A personal airplane? Skyscrapers can be toppled using ingredients from a grocery store. That's not mentioning the sheer destructive potential of heavy industrial machinery gone wrong (read

Space Fighters do have important and vital uses outside the arena of deep warfare. Some roles will likely be in common with modern aircraft. You have transports. Even though they technically aren't fighters, on the other side of the coin they are prime targets for fighters, thus there's a good reason to keep some around. Fighers are the most mobile of weapons platforms, which is essential if ground troops are relying on a heavy punch when they need it. They can defend low priority targets. As

[quote]You can't make your spaceships faster, cheaper, or invisible if your lugging around a bucket full of passengers. Don't mistake my point. I'm not advocating the use of ballistic warfare in space, I'm arguing against all warfare in space. It's pointless, uneconomical, and mutually destructive. Terrestrial wars are much cleaner. -Dr. B[/quote] Pray tell, how are you going to wage terrestrial war without lugging around a bucket full of passengers? W

Sorry Dr B., but you should first name all the wars where the objective of both sides is the complete obliteration of the enemy, all strongholds, and its people. Having trouble? That's because a MAD war doctrine DOESN'T WORK. Such technology has the power to only break civilizations(in modern days it can break the world), which means it will be controlled by only the biggest superpowers. The only thing that MAD has proved so far, is that it is a powerful diplomatic tool for establishi

I'd say Silveus and FelixDrake nailed it. [quote]Can a space fighter wreck someone's day enough before blowing up to be worth fielding?[/quote] [quote]But why would ships be fighting in the middle of no where? Most Space battles would take place near some form of objective.[/quote] There is little to no STRATE

[quote]Ships of the size for just transport sounds reasonable but considering that space is devoide of matter, ship speed would be irrelivent.[/quote]This is where you went wrong. A ship's speed isn't that important, but a ship's maneuverability IS. No ship can avoid a good laser, but if you can place your ship somewhere outside the kill zone before lead can reach your location, then you won't be easy to kill. Also, some guns don't turn very well. A large ship with a spinal mo

There is a research property, where you must have the prerequesite labs to continue building a ship or using an ability. This doesn't apply to all research topics. If you were to change the max ship slots to be the same, wouldn't they follow the same rules? If you had rank 5 fleets, but fell down to 2 labs... it might work out. Naturally you'd have to lose a LOT in order to have your research fall back like that, but the restored income might help you rebound.

But on the plus side, you can't scuttle your entire fleet at once. Generally, if you can't find enough guns to willingly destroy your excess ships, haven't you won the game?