ZombiesRus5

[quote]YOU DONT NEED ANY OF THOSE TO COUNTER STUFF, all you need is illumantors, they kill all.[/quote] Except for fighters and bombers. Maybe the side beams should target strikecraft just to round out all the counters!

I've brought this up in another post, but... I would be more for nerfing the LRF's ANTIMEDIUM's Very Heavy and Capital damage to 50% (similar to LF which is ANTIHEAVY). They would still be affective at taking out a capital and structures over time (similar to LF), just not as affective as bombers or HC. I'm also more in favor of buffing Capital's ship damage modifiers to 125-150% for Very Heavy and below. It seems odd that normal LF and Cruisers get a damage modifi

[quote]Flak also have Heavy armor, which LFs are good against.[/quote] Correct, LF get a damage modifier bonus (150%) to anything with Heavy Armor.

So there are a lot of posts discussing Capital ship Buff this, Nerf that because early game capital carriers are too OP and capital ships going poof early due to FF attack. So I was wondering... What if: Capital Ship's required research beyond basic capital ship crew and received some buffs as a result. Would we get more varied capital ship roll outs? Would support caps like the Dunov, Rapture and Antorak get used. Would players try to tech up to get really

[quote]I want to hear about the starbase/minelayer/overseer/carrier strat please (haven't seen it).[/quote] It's pretty nasty. Here's what I remember: You drop in your minelayer's, subverter and carriers for fighter coverage on the edge of the gravity well and draw them in with your starbase constructor. Once you draw their fleet in, especially heavy Illum, you lay the subverter trap and deploy your mines right on top of their fleet. You may or may not have the starbase up and co

On a side note with the Dual Halcyon, Dual Sova, etc. I wonder how much different this game would be if Capital ships (excluding the colonizer) required research just like every other ship passed the scout/LF/colonizer ships. You could actually justify bigger/badder capital ships coming out mid to late game. I think the Star Trek mod is a good example of this.

[quote]I actually just got out of a game where my opponent (Z00MERS) hit me with a dual-desolator rush. A little dangerous, but I saw it coming and brought out a Halcyon (I lead Progen) and some illums. I drove him off and eventually chased those desolators into a PJI (I opened civic) and killed them. Still, very dangerous; it was tearing up my homeworld shockingly fast and if I hadn't been scouting like a hawk it would have been very deadly indeed. Honestly, I thought the starbase

[quote]lol I feel the same way. Its gets annoying reading through all the posts. My vote is armed civi structures, planet defence abilities: example, scorched earth policy (impossible for enemy to colonize your former planet for X minutes), and merc hiring for the civi tech tree.[/quote] Read the entire post plz ;) JK But these all have been suggested in some detail. There are actually some good suggestions and it's a short thread. You might actually read through some of them

[quote]If the main purpose is to further restrict vast fleets, then how about accuracy penalties? If too many ships are engaged against the same target then they should suffer penalties for being unable to get clear enough feedback from their fire. Strikecraft should also suffer penalties if too many attempt to engage the same target, though I'd have the strikecraft penalties separate. This would be a different concept from mitigation, which is just based on damage received. I'd also scale th

Well, I can tell you what doesn't work. Dual Vulkoras Desolators and Assailants/Navigators. This is the second time I have noticed a two Vulkoras opening. Are these good capital ships to open with? why? Anyway, in a 4v4 Huge Single Star and I went Dual Halcyon LF/LRM fleet he went as above. He ran his Desolators leaving his home world unprotected and trying to set the fight on his roid with zero PJI. I sent enough illums up that he started spamming navigators/assailants a

[quote]However, the reason for the LRF countering every unit seems to be that they share the damage line of structures, either set of alterations would have to take this into account. If you simply nerf anti-medium that might nerf starbases against small fleets.. I'd shift structures to the composite line where they seem happier.[/quote] Starbases actually use the CAPITALSHIP attack type. Turrents use the ANTIMEDIUM and would be nerfed against capital ships and heavies. Un-upgrad

[quote] I'm not sure where the concept that LF are a counter to scouts is from? [/quote] It's because scouts only do 50% damage to LF and 200% damage LRF. [quote]Its always seemed peculiar to me that anti-heavy damage should be less effective against very heavy armour than anti-medium, thats counter-intuitive. Its also why heavies don't counter LRF as well as they might, as they have too few ships to be taking damage at the 75% level. With these changes the new lin

[quote]I would think around having ship 'size classes'. Ships can engage normally with up to 1 size of difference, but for each point of difference greater than 1, damage effectiveness doubles if you are bigger, or halves if you are smaller.[/quote] The problem with this is the game mechanic is based on Damage Types and Armor Classes. The system of counters is also based on this approach. I don't really see how ship size fits based on this. Armor Class: Very Light, Light, Medi

[quote]Now, one possibility to make capital ships tougher could be to rework shield mitigation. Right now, any realistic scenario will max out shield mitigation practically instantly. This means that focus fire is the best course of action; mitigation is already maxed, there's no further penalty to piling on more DPS. My idea is to raise the maximum shield mitigation values, and also make mitigation fall faster when at higher levels. The result would be it will take a

Is this chart still valid? https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/177682/page/5 It seems odd that ANTIMEDIUM would outgun ANTIHEAVY for the damage modifier on VERYHEAVY and CAPITAL. Would it make sense to atleast nerf ANTIMEDIUM to 50% on capital ships and very heavy? Has it ever been suggested in the past to have capital ships do the max damage, or atleast higher modifier, to all armor types below capi

[quote]Turrets actually have some viability now. Some people are raving over the TEC turret, and that's fine, but if you like to play vasari, I promise you their turret upgrade kicks ass. It stops all hull, shield, and antimatter regeneration for a LONG time (something like 10 minutes?).[/quote] 5 minutes (300 seconds) based off the entity file.

Don't feel bad, I won a 3v3 PvP match that turned into a 1v2 PvP against decent players with two AI allies on my side and one AI ally on their side. My teammates dropped in the first 10 minutes. I think the first one dropped after watching our teammate in a good position to rush camp until he had three Halcyon's built (I was curious to watch and see what he would do actually). The Halcyon builder dropped after the first dropped leaving me 1v3. The third guy dropped on their team after I

wow this got a second page in the forum!!!

Sins of Solar Empire (currently v1.181) without the Entrenchment exansion (currently v1.041)

I may have to dust off my DOW disks and try the mods [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

[quote]You run a bit of a problem there, because I didn't just have two Halcyons (remember, this was a fed rush), but also a swarm of disciples and seekers backing it up. I eventually did rush the starbase with disciples and killed it. Going for hanger upgrades first would have just left him vulnerable to TK push while my disciples charged him. On the other hand, the weapons upgrade didn't do much help for him either as I kited until my bombers had whittled him away. I personally t

[quote]I love the concept of pacts, but I don't like what these pacts are doing. I want new abilities, new threats, new strategies, not a scalar bonus to existing units. This still means you have a guy sitting in the pocket specializing eco while everyone else spams military labs and maybe two civics for ice/volcanic access.[/quote] Precisely. All the pacts fit in your OP statement: [quote]Technologies that increase extractor income or pacts that increase weapon damage do

[quote]My last remarks are simply that this is a powerful strategy and there's no question that you're going to have to work hard to beat it (particularly if you're Vasari). I easily slaughtered a Vasari opponent the other day as a dual-Halcyon Advent. The replay showed why: I got feed and he did not. As a result, he struggled to get a starbase operational but I was in the gravity well and hitting it with bombers before it was upgraded. If he'd had feed, he would have had repair bays and hang

I have a hard time understanding the reluctance to use repair bays and a support fleet as well. Even having a small overlapping group of repair bays to slide your capital ship around and then re-engaging it in the battle provides a superior tactical advantage. The repair bays don't need to sit right next to where the battle is happening.

Assuming this is SoSE... Lol Dorian. He did say it was listed as "Noob Game". I think the general expectation there was he would be fine to enter. However, my advice to really new players who want to do PvP is to host a game with AI. This would tend to keep players like those commented above out of the game. You can simply add an AI to each team but still get the PvP feel. Now to your and blackhawk's points. I can't really disagree to much. Unfortunately I was one of those pla