locutus1071

I'll add my voice to those clamoring for more intelligent AI. One thing that would (I think) be simple to fix is the average size of AI fleets. Even playing against one or two Unfair AI enemies in entrenchment, the AI seems simply incapable of massing a fleet with sufficient strength to punch out one of my strong points. I typically seize control of chokepoints as soon as possible, build a starbase at each one along with a phase stabilizer node (I <3 Vasa

Shucks, 'tis a shame that this doesn't have an easy solution. The problem also seems to exten to Starbases creating phase gates in the area of a star, I've never gotten those to work, even though the other ones *sometimes* do. :(

I was playing a big 4p match against the AI, and after getting to the late game, I decided to use my Kostura Canons to stabilize the phase space around the enemy homeworld, and my Marauder to let my fleet jump from its current location in enemy territory to the enemy capital (I <3 Vasari). However, this strategem didn't work because the fleet insisted on back-tracking to the nearest planet with a phase stabilizer structure in order to actually make the jump to the enemy capital.&nbsp

One minor thing that I think would be neat that I haven't seen mentioned: Make gravwells much bigger. Quite often, big fleets take up half the star system, and it really limits the ability use manuever to give youself a tactical advantage, or force combat with a fleet that wishes to avoid action. As far as modelling anti-missile defenses, I have an idea. First off, let me say that I have no idea whether it would be feasible within the Sins engine, but my mod

I hate to be a naysayer, but I was part of a team which tried to do exactly that in the Homeworld 2 engine, and we got shut down due to IP considerations. It seems we were given a cease-and-desist (we eventually got some correspondance with Mr. Weber himself, though it didn't avail us) in favour of this: http://www.rulethehonorverse.com/ . While I would dearly love to see my favourite military sci-fi universe in Sins, it would be even worse for some people to try

I'm having this problem with Beta 2 as well, but not Beta 1. Go an 8800 Ultra, which ought to handle anything Sins throws at it. And this is with low graphics settings. It just starts creating minidump, then crashes dead.

Thanks for that Blair, I look forward to seeing the modders run with it. :) Does anyone have ideas about what, if anything, should be done about the collision-range engagements between fleets we see sometimes? Or does that more properly belong in a new thread?

I also have some questions about the phase destabilization ability: if weapon ranges have only been increased "slightly" is the damage from the ability going to be enough to convince players / the AI to NOT simply bypass a fronteir base into a lightly defended system? If a fleet has sufficient repair ships (looking at TEC esp. here) then the damage I think should be enough to destroy anything less than a CL outright, otherwise fleets will just bypass a starbase, have repair ships lick t

Seems odd to be announcing final release when the beta still hasn't really been patched to final release quality. Are the devs really that confident that they have every bug from the beta fixed, the gameplay tuned, without even testing their fixes? I mean, shouldn't the patches to the beta go through at least some public balance testing and such?

Silveressa: The point is that battles look a little more realistic, and secondly, that you are able then to engage non-frontline units. For example, if the enemy has groups of repair cruisers or command ships behind a wall of CAs, or LRM frigates in the rear, then those ships are forced to either maneuver, or be pounded rather hard. It would seem to reduce the effectiveness of artillery frigates, but it might make sense for a Vasari fleet commander to send some CLs of FGs over / b

Ah, Thanks. I wasn't here for the discussions during the original sins beta, so I wasn't aware that it had been discussed before, I didn't see in on a quick look through the forums. I was just thinking what an easy time we had adding it to HW2, didn't consider the numbers as much.

I figure this might be general feedback, but it applies to the beta as well, since it really struck me as absurde watching starbase assualts: The ships just SIT THERE and fire / take a pounding. There is no evasion, no indication that the ships are anything but chesspieces or componeents of a formal line (should at least be a wall) of battle. I don't know how many people here have played the Point Defense systems mod for Homeworld 2, b

Am I just imagining things, or in regular Sins didn't double-clicking on a selected ship select all ships of the same type? I also noted that shift-clicking on the empire tree only let me add individual units, rather than selected the beginning and end of a group of ships. Feel free to tell me I'm crazy, but I seem to remember these UI elements. If I am crazy, I'd suggest incorporating them, as selecting all types of ships in a gravity

I already reported this, and they said they fixed it.

[quote]This would be useless unless you had scouts in the fleet since they are the only ones who can see them...[/quote] Really? While playing as Vasari vs. TEC, I could see enemy mines, I just couldn't clear them out because I don't have any scouts around.

I was indeed playing Vasari. The cruiser ship has an ability which drops 2 mines where ever the ship happens to be. If you have the cruiser move from point-to-point with autocast on, it will drop mines (for free) as it travels. They simply consume anti-matter, so there is a limit to the rate at which you can drop these freebies. This does mean Vasari can drop mines anywhere, but it takes more micro to defend a system, which is what I'm talking about here.

I made a thread about this earlier today, and they said they've fixed it in internal builds.

As it stands, deploying mines requires a bit of annoying micro, and makes them harder to use in system defense. What I might suggest is something to make deplyoing entire fields of mines. Either a "deploy minefield" ability that makes ships deploy a 10x10 array of mines, or something like the Homeworld 2 mine layer system, where a mine layer would deploy and then maintain a set minefield. I'm also curious: are mines supposed to be visible wh

Did you fix all the bugs with Vasari research? This appears to be endemic to the Vasari as a whole now. For example, I just built the Phase Stabilizer add-on to the Starbase, even though I don't have the research completed (or started even, due again to insufficient weapons labs built, though they have been put in the que and paid for). It is further bugged in that it appeared to "build" instantly, and has the symbol that signifies a completed add-on / research over the icon

I was playing a game v. the AI as Vasari, and I decided to que up a pair of hanger defense installations as soon as I paid for the research so I wouldn't have to think about it later. Imagine my surprise when they IMMEDIATELY started construction. I have attached my save file, where two hanger defense installations have been built, and not only has the research not completed, my weapon labs haven't even finished building. One is at 64%, but it should be unable to conduct res

Seems obvious, but I haven't seen it posted yet. In the Vasari Fortification tech tree, the "Gravity Mines" upgrade descriptive text reads "String not found", rather than a description of what the ability actually does. It says: Unlocks: Lay Gravity Mine (in white) string not found (in yellow)