eoncommander

i know, i was just adding more useless information unrelated to the topic

[quote]Commanding Officer is usually a senior Captain but referred to as Commodore.[/quote] just to make it more confusing, commodore is also a rank in the british navy, it is the equivalent of our rear admiral lower half (1-star admiral) squad/squadron is a generic term for a group of things (soldiers/ships/fighters) as well as a specific unit within the military structure

i want to know how you managed to update this post four weeks in the future! my guess is you reversed the month and day (or you could be from europe, i suppose). anyway, this was an excellent post, and although i dont play online, i will still use some of these tactics when i do play

why isnt squadron an option? in the modern navy/airforce, squadrons refer to both fighers and groups of ships (wings also refer to fighters, but that doesnt seem applicable here; unless you want to say a carrier cap carries a wing of fighters/bombers). also, a large number of planes are are also referred to as a fleet - it is not merely a naval term anymore. i tend to agree with CI. the names of the different groups of advent and vasari ships sound really weird and stupid, but i'

[quote who="Pbhead" reply="62" id="2403995"]your wrong. [/quote] no, he's right. it is you that is wrong. [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e]

[quote who="numerarius5988am" reply="54" id="2403308"]If an American moves to Australia, then they'd still be American. Also, sometimes people refer to their roots or ancestry. [/quote] what about his grandchildren? his grandchildren's grandchildren? are they american? i am not polish, despite the fact that my grandmother is from poland

[quote who="C.I." reply="51" id="2403266"]but if you use white car to describe a blue car, isn't that wrong? [/quote] a person who lives on a desert or ice planet would definitely be angry at the use of the term "terran" to describe all humans. it would be akin to calling all inhabitants of earth today "americans," just because our economy drives the world edit: goddamn quotes!

[quote who="David Giovagnoli" reply="48" id="2403232"]It's not letting me quote, for some reason, but to the post a few back: A participle is a verbal adjective, which can also function as a noun, in the sense that any adjective can stand for a noun. You'd need a gerrund in the ablative, as it functions as an actual noun in that construction, as sine is a preposition that takes the ablative. In any case, yes, it should be navis, not naves, for the same reason it's United Sta

[quote who="Ryat" reply="44" id="2402990"]Not really Itharus, many a sci-fi writer has theorized such an idea (Issac Asimov, Foundation Series is one) and considering how much info we have lost it is not beyond the realm of possiblity. A complete systematic break down of an earth-centric empire leaving the planet earth regulated to fairy tales could happen in the future. Admittedly there is no proof that such a thing happened in ths Sins lore but there is no proof that such a thing has

[quote who="Allegiance86" reply="41" id="2402432"]SOOOOO YEAH TDN. Could mean Trader or Terran but seeing as usually a nation gives their naval ships acronyms that represent that nation, Im leaning towards Trader. Heres an excerpt from the description of the Sova. "Having proven to be an effective countermeasure to pirate incursions, strike craft have been a staple of planetary defense forces for hundreds of years." Now this doesnt definitively prov

[quote who="numerarius5988am" reply="25" id="2402387"]I don't think so. Depends how you upgrade them. I've had my Argonevs destroy a few Orkulus, on it's own. Don't know if the Orkulus was fully upgraded though. I had set up my first game of Entrenchment so that I would be allies with an unfair aggressor Vasari, having locked teams. After all planets had been colonized and all gravity wells, except magnetic clouds had a fully upgraded Argonev (with the upgrades of 2 weapons systems, 3 structu

i'm taking latin right now, in school

[quote]The last sentence I used a verb participle, sciens, which I think would mean "knowing". Otherwise, I'd just be repeating scientia. Would "sine habes scientiam" work better? I've only studied Wheelocks on my own as of last year, but I try to keep the knowledge fresh because it is a really cool language.[/quote] participles are not verbs, they are adjectives. so yes, sine habes scientiam works better. if you want to be technical, sine scientiam habes is correct,

isnt that a little unfair? since the vasari starbase is their anti-structure vessel? so it is purposely designed to destroy other starbases?

i like this idea. sounds cool i would suggest two grav wells. or three, so that tactical retreats do become an option. there would be no defenses, however (unles you added them, of course). i like battle simulator, arena, or testing ground, in terms of names

[quote]Navis is the singular, which is correct when considering a single ship. Naves, is plural.[/quote] this is true. since i was thinking in terms of Trader/Terran Defense Navy , didnt consider that it should be singluar. Neque loquor neque scribo, sed lego. (btw, there's no verb in your last sentence)

[quote]Really though, all science fiction star fleets, Battleships, crusiers, frigates, and carriers, are based on Naval counterparts.[/quote] how bout battleships ? they're all gone now, but they were staples of fleets for 100 years [quote who="Itharus" reply="20" id="2401346"]Because these guys are merchants. They'd apply coroporate thinking to their defense plans. Instead of having a big navy, they'd have a gestalt

[quote who="numerarius5988am" reply="31" id="2402131"]But as for the Latin idea... Terrestris Defensionis Navis. "Ship of Terran Defense." [/quote] wouldnt it be naves? ships? and is defensionus even a word? or do you not even speak a word of latin, and just found a website to do it for you?

[quote who="Yarlen" reply="34" id="2400974"] thats twice now that yarlen responded without actually addressing our concerns. he still hasnt explained what the constructor icon was placeholding for. now, i suppose it could be a placeholder for the envoy cruiser, but then why wouldnt he just say that? makes me think (hope) something is up Sorry, I addressed it in another thread. There are no new capital ships for Diplomacy. The button that got everyone's hopes up is just i

yea, but trader defense network has more of a ring than trader defense navy. i always thought it was the former too. not for any particular reason, just a hunch

[quote who="Jrla21" reply="30" id="2398551"]I'm not impressed with the trailer quality. It looks as if it was pieced together since some parts of the screen take longer to get to the foreground than others. [/quote] they said a lot of time went into that

i havent bothered to read/comment on the history threads, much as i would have liked (very, very busy with schoolwork the last few weeks). i'll take your word on it, and hopefully it will come out much better. any idea on a timeframe for these edits?

we're still here, and no word from witchfire for a long time...[e digicons]:([/e]

thats twice now that yarlen responded without actually addressing our concerns . he still hasnt explained what the constructor icon was placeholding for. now, i suppose it could be a placeholder for the envoy cruiser, but then why wouldnt he just say that? makes me think (hope) something is up

but a placeholder for what?