[quote]lol, where did i pretend to have all the answers?[/quote] lol, where did i say all? and you still havent answered the second part of my original question... [quote]however a layman's opinions are largely irrelevant to ANY scientific debate unless they're published and put through the same rigourous scrutiny as the theories or ideas they are seeking to contradict or replace.[/quote] i dont put much stock in whats been 'published' simply because everyone has their
i tried this idea a while ago with the Carrier Cap mainly, but also with other caps, but many people were opposed to it... simply put, i think this or a variation of this, is a good idea, but just as worthwhile would be some more direct combat ships... i must say out of all the RTS games ive played, SINS has the least number of playable units... for example: in a standard RTS you can use either anti-tank infantry or tanks (or maybe aircraft or other things, depending on the ga
note that this second part of my question has yet to be answered nor did Raistlin answer Melchiz's question adequately... the signature of a person without the answers
[quote]What was the "scientific consensus" back in the 1700's? The world was flat. You live in a country that scientifically shouldn't exist... How is that so? Consensus means nothing. Truth through observation is the only realm of reason here. And my observations see that it is shaping up to be one of the coldest winters the northern hemisphere has seen for a long time. Not to mention "global warming" is no longer the term of choice, now its "climate change" Why are they blurring
definitly second guessing Win 7 now... i mean, my laptop handles Vista pretty well, dont see why i should upgrade... unless they can provide some compatibility for older stuff? it would be nice... idn, keep us updated if its any good performance wise =)
yeah, i find the older games tend to be better... M.A.X. was a great game from Interplay, doesnt work on new OS.. though :( with that in mind, will TA work on Vista or newer? or is it not THAT old?
you're Canadian right... yeah.... thats pretty close to Australia... ;) thanks anyway wait so TA is better than SC or the other way around or should i just get the both?
how do you suggest moving all the people and materiel required for setting up a colony first through the gate and then dozens of miles through a desert or other unsuitable climate, then set up a colony? even with jumpers or similar shuttles (which we have no evidence of) its alot of time and effort when you could step through the gate and be at the doorstep of where you want to be... it makes much more sense to put the gate AT LEAST within... idn, 5 miles at the most, then move m
near where there is shelter so it makes no difference what the weather is like... even if the gate is outside, its a short run to shelter no matter the weather, and if its inside it makes no difference... while the gate can engage as easily from here as well as it can from 20 or more miles away it makes more sense to put a prospective colony near the valuable resource AND the gate, than to stretch everything out for something as simple as weather...
so why put the gate there? you would put it in a favourable location... plus the first Earth gate was likely moved there by the Goa'uld, and for whatever reason they liked that spot, and the second Earth gate may have been lost, left there by the Ancients simply because it'd be hard to find, etc etc... im hesitant to suggest continental drift because of the time frame but its also a possibility...
but what was the purpose of the destiny then? that ship couldnt possibly carry enough people and supplies to populate colonies on multiple planets, let alone multiple galaxies. if the answer then is to act as a depot or waypoint, a place for ancients from other worlds to congregate closer to their new homes before actually arriving, then fine, but then then the destiny should be able to dial home... or somewhere... and i agree with the spreading of population, but there a
in the above situation you could always set fleet engagement range to local area to prevent this.... and in the next grav well you might as well let your enemy come to you, that way you are in formation so all your ships can fire at once rather than being spread out all over the grav well
so what... the point is to get foot holds in innumerable galaxies and not actually seed the one galaxy thoroughly and move on? no one said the destiny is moving from galaxy to galaxy every single episode yes, it has travelled through a few galaxies, but no one said it didnt stop and explore each galaxy thoroughly... it seems stupid and not ancient-y... seriously, seeding three gates then moving to a whole new GALAXY? how many planets did the ancients need? really, seems like b
i think they would be better off releasing Sins 2... Sins base code programming is just too limited... ships dont use Z axis adequately, ships are inherently unbalanced, and there are a multitude of other problems and shortcomings... its a great game, but it doesnt fulfil its potential for many reasons my advice, just deal with it until sins 2 is released and pray to the gaming Gods that the devs improve on what they have now
[quote who="danielost" reply="400" id="2502753"]your assuming that there were more than three gates in that galaxy [/quote] and thats not a reasonable assumption? its 3 gates in an entire galaxy, come on...
honestly, i prefer to have them scrap the 3rd micro expansion and start work on Sins 2... the game engine in Sins 2 is just too limited in my opinion... all the complaints on the forums are evidence of this, and here is just no way to fix it without a major re-write, so why not just start a new game.
[quote] but in the first episode they were able to dial three gates. except the computer had locked two of them out. [/quote] yeah yeah, like i said though... they had to be in range... only 3 gates? and dont tell me they are jumping from galaxy to galaxy so quickly. if so, there is no way they could possibly 'explore' each galaxy sufficiently...
[quote]This is the bottom line. If a capship is supposed to support the fleet in battle, then this role does not scale with the number of lrf in the game. Period.[/quote] i agree [quote]I like the idea of capships countering capships. Then your caps would essentially always be there to support the fleet[/quote] yeah, but then we have a problem with what happens when your caps are destroyed? i mean, lets say a lvl 1 battleship is supposed to take out a seige or a colony
[quote]There isn't actually anything saying that they can't use all the available stargates.[/quote] no... im pretty sure one of the tech's keeps saying - everytime the ship stops 'near' a gate - he says "We're in range of a gate" [quote]A ship can't use an on-board Stargate while in transit and every time you approach a planet with a stargate, you have to calibrate your position.[/quote] given... although i remember a fair few Goa'uld motherships carrying SG's...
idn... i agree that Caps melting against FF sucks... but think about just how much firepower there is in a late game fleet... dozens of ships, potentially hundreds of SC plus orbital defenses etc... its really an unimaginable amount of power... or, if you want to put in scientific terms, a really large number... so unless Caps have a new and revised mitigation system that really stops incoming damage from focus fire effectively, as well as higher armor and HP levels, there is no way t
yeah, but like i said, its irrelevant... first, the science is sketchy.. all they said was the core of the planet generate energy... but not how it does so... i know they said something about radiation etc... but without getting into the Theory of Nuclear Power, radiation etc doesnt generate power without a generator... basically, we saw in the first episode a hologram of the location of Earth in relation to the Destiny, and yeah, it was a fair few galaxies away. but like i said, they
