Lord_Derbius

When it is activated, do the "phantom" illuminators take as much damage as real ones before they disappear or some fraction? Does there appear to be twice as many illums to the enemy even in the "strategic" map while the power is active? Can you "start" the power before jumping then jump and appear to have twice as many when you arrive or do you have to do it in the system when you arrive? Can you control the "phantoms" in any way?

Yeah Bradyule that's pretty much the conclusion I came to as well. I was just looking to see if there was a recommended way to recover from a situation I shouldn't have been in in the first place.

What about if you like to play Vasari as I do?

If your enemy has rushed straight to cruisers and you don't have cruiser tech yourself (or if your mil labs sufficient to build them are dead) what should you do? In theory bombers do the trick but maybe not fast enough to protect your planets or carriers before they die? PS what happens if you deploy bombers from carriers then the carriers flee? Do they leave the bombers behind or wait to pick them up? If the bombers are left behind do they die off automatically?

Hmm.. It would be handy to have ship speeds, accelleration and turning speeds in the master spreadsheet. Is there a reference with that info in it? How did you know the ships speeds dieinafire?

If they haven't built flaks couldn't your transporters just keep running from the Kodiaks indefinitely? How about trapping them in a system (at least for a little while) using a jump inhibitor and building several hangars there?

A similar thing happened to me last night. If your opponent has got a fleet that fast you can bet it is by focusing solely on those techs and he won't have expanded much if at all. The trick is to keep an eye on your enemy at all times to see what he's up to. If he is pulling that "rush" strategy, figure out what ships he's planning to rush with and build some counter-ships to that rush (in this case - fighters and bombers?). Also consider ambushing his homeworld (or wherever he's buil

I know Friday at 14:00 UK time and earlier is probably not a good time as it excludes people who are working and people in the US but I thought I would at least find one other player around! It would help if when browsing lobbies there was an indication of number of players in each.

The decals idea is a good one, Retroboy - and not just for this purpose. It would be good to be able to mess around with the production queue even without 'going into the negative'. If decals couldn't be fit at the bottom of the screen, an additional button somewhere that would take you to a full-screen production queue should be do-able and would be useful. Even without any UI changes this could be implementable as an "advanced user" option to be used at the user's own risk.

Several times towards the end of a game I have found myself generating sufficient resources that when I was actively managing a battle I would have stockpiled lots by the end of it, even when I had spent down to zero before the battle started. Why not allow you to "stack" orders even when you don't have the resources for them and only have them execute when there are sufficient resources to build things? (On a "first in, first out" basis). Before a battle starts I could start some exp

It would be nice if you could assimilate even the planets of allies through culture - that way you could win without fighting (at least in theory!)

Well I wanted to try out peaceful assimilation but it didn't seem to work. I had a planet 4 jumps from its homeworld surrounded by planets totalling 6 media centres. I was Advent and had total assimilation working for me. And I fired the assimilation cannon at the planet. I went to visit it with my fleet and found that although it had only a single media centre of its own it was at 80% allegiance to its owner! Is it because I was allied to that owner? Can you only take over pla

Presumably missiles are 360 degree weapons while other weapons have to be mounted in one direction or another. I would think one approach would be to make different kinds of beam weapons have different ranges.

Seems like a good idea to me MegaVolt... It would also be more logical. At the moment the weapon type for each ship seems to have been chosen rather arbitrarily.

Unless I missed something you can't request (or demand) resources from the AI. If they can ask you why can't you ask them? You also can't hand over control of ships or planets to allies (whether AI or human) - at least as far as I can tell. It would be great if players with races with abilities that complement each other could hand over control of ships to their allies so they could form balanced fleets under a single player's control rather than each player having to monitor the other pl

No interest? Has anyone noticed whether missile-based weapons have a better chance to hit than beam weapons?

Seems to me that 1) there should be a limit of one phase gate per system and 2) that the returning armada should be a fixed benefit rather than one that varies per phase gate in any case. That is, that it should generate a random but roughly X powerful fleet every Y seconds at a randomly-chosen phase gate. I don't see why the armada's strength should fluctuate depending on the number of gates available for it to come in on.

Agreed re Styr's last comment (are phase missiles affected by shield mitigation or not? I assume not - which would make them really good). But mainly this should be stickied - it's extremely useful info!

Ah that link you gave me Tridus is the one I have been looking for! Thank you for that and for your valuable help in this and other threads I started...

Yes it's the chart I was referring to that was confusing me. So armor type and armor value are quite separate things? How important is armor do you think? Without knowing how it works exactly it is hard to get a picture of whether it should be a priority in teching up. If it reduces damage by a set amount rather than by a percentage it would be more important for small than large ships...

The sins ref sheet talks about "armor classes" ranging between "v light" and "v heavy" and affects specific ship types (not specific weapon types). It is also not necessarily always good to have more armor - when facing bombers for example it seems you will take less damage if you don't have "v heavy" armor. The tech trees on the other hand give armor numbers. So if you tech up your fighters with +5 armor do they get "v heavy" armor and become vulnerable to bombers?! Does the armor number repres

Is there any essential difference between these weapon types other than characteristics like phase miniaturization for the Vasari that you research? eg wave hitting a certain armour type or ship type better than pulse? Or is the main purpose of the different weapon types to make sure that you can't improve all the weapons on your fleet at once but some ships get stronger than others depending on which weapon type you upgrade?

As I understand it: 1) allegiance gets lower the further you are away from your home planet 2) media centres gradually lower the allegiance of enemy planets 3) Cap ships (for Vasari at least) help to protect against this. (Do they also raise allegiance on unthreatened worlds?) Do media centres raise allegiance of the planets they are built on? Do they raise allegiance of friendly planets nearby as well (ie should one build them just to help far-off colonies have higher allegiance

Does it go up in proportion to the number of ships firing or the damage that is being received? If the former then it's a reason to buy fewer, more powerful ships. Does it take into account the size of the target ship? Ie if 5 frigates attack one frigate will that frigate have more shield mitigation than five frigates attacking a cap ship?