The only space strategy game that could make me play it more than once or twice is Endless Space. (too bad it seems I started playing space strategies later than everyone else and can not really enjoy older games than SoaSE).. EDIT: My favourite game of all times is Sins of a Solar Empire :D just Endless space is the only OTHER space strategy game I could play for a longer time without getting bored or too confused. It is a bit strange I am a warmonger in Sins of a Solar Empir
[quote who="N3rull" reply="13" id="3429962"]Vasari... well, we can go on for hours about their "political" and "social" systems and why they are wrong, but we are not sure yet if that caused all the trouble they are facing.[/quote] Maybe, or maybe not, but I don't know when this post went into who is punished and for what... Slavery is a sin, and it does not really matter if it's the cause of their exodus, fate can punish them and the real cause of the exodus is somewhat irrel
[quote who="WOEaintME" reply="2" id="3429803"]I'd like to see in future the usage of lifetime stats to build a player profile that the ai can use to learn from and counter the player. Although I personally feel this is not do able in DLC.[/quote] The average player who does not even realize static defenses are bad, would not really benefit from this. And yes, it is absurd to think a DLC can do this. Maybe a totally new game..
[quote who="petrossa" reply="1745" id="3429758"]Poor Greenpeace activists still trapped in the Antarctic. And all that to 'prove' how bad it was with the ice on the Antarctic.[/quote] You seem to forget the Arctic and the Antarctic regions are totally different, ocean surrounded by continents or a continent (more like archipelago if you remove the ice) surrounded by the Southern ocean. I recommend you read these before making invalid statements based on
[quote who="N3rull" reply="12" id="3429669"]or simply a starbase-like design, with 4 banks of standard guns[/quote] This would be nice, and would justify "killing" those little things when building this swarm. Oh and it could have disintegrators, I really love that weapon type, looks very cool but it is currently found only on the starbase..
[quote who="Frostflare" reply="8" id="3429617"]Discuss?[/quote] [quote who="Frostflare" reply="8" id="3429617"]Combat Swarm:[/quote] I think the group spawn would be the best way to make this ability useful at all stages of the game. I dont care about the other details, just don't make the swarms weaker and make higher level abilities spawns more of them. [quote who="Frostflare" reply="8" id="3429617"]Support Swarm:[/quote] More swarms would be better here
[quote who="petrossa" reply="1709" id="3429319"]And the idea a few ants can influence the watervapor in the atmosphere ..... [/quote] [quote who="petrossa" reply="1738" id="3429654"]What a selfdelusional bunch, AGW cultists.[/quote] Your illusion of this world and the things happening in it is frightening and worrying at the same time, like you are not living on this planet, and are intentionally blind. [quote who="petrossa" reply="1738" i
[quote who="N3rull" reply="3" id="3429389"]There is always something else that does the given job better. 90% of the time the better choice is called skirantra.[/quote] It is true but diversity makes the game a bit fun when you have a bunch of capital ships, it is better to have more types than only one or two. But I must agree, I never use this ship for it's strength..
[quote]Combat nanite swarm - creates a corvette-ish little piece of shit that does about as much damage as a scout. Even in huge numbers all these pieces of junk can really do is soak damage (if someone is stupid enough to shoot them), cause their DPS is just bleh. In potential DPS, this ability loses hard to scramble bombers in 95% of real game situations. [/quote] Early game it can provide some free firepower that does not need fleet supply, but you are right, n
The numbers are not moddable, there is no line for that in any file as far as I know. Best thing you can do is playing teams with varying difficulties, like 2 hard against you, you and an AI VS 3 AI's etc, but it is not a viable option for everyone (I never do it as well, instead try to beat unfair with starbases..)
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1607" id="3427820"]There's always opportunity in any 'change'. But AGW alarmists refuse to consider the possibility of any potentially beneficial/offsetting aspects of warming.[/quote] Yes there are opportunities, but if the sea level rises in this century by a small amount like 1 meter huge areas will get under water, and guess what, millions are living next to the sea, and there are many important cities next to it as well. <
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="1588" id="3427233"]Ok I'll just leave it at that [/quote] Again posting at the same time was the issue :D I don't think concrete and bricks are that much of an issue..
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="1582" id="3427213"]And perhaps we can also abandon use of so much concrete and go back to building brick buildings. Those are nicer to look at as well.[/quote] lol what's the problem with concrete?
[quote who="Kantok" reply="1578" id="3426990"]So we've been hearing since the 1930s. [/quote] It will surely happen one day.. As their rate of renewal is around millions of years. [quote who="Kantok" reply="1578" id="3426990"]In reality if we really have hit peak oil we're approaching some drastic spike in oil prices, that will just hasten the switch to alternatives. [/quote] Noone said we reached peak oil extraction
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1576" id="3426978"]Facism and Communism are pretty far on the extremes. Geo claimed to be a right of center person but he clearly thinks the answer lies with government.[/quote] I don't really understand why it is prohibited for a right center person to believe in governmental influence over the economy and various things? And I guess everyone likes things from the other side as well, like a liberal likes some conservative things and etc.  
[quote who="Hankers" reply="1568" id="3426795"]^^^^ Couldn't help myself[/quote] Couldn't help myself but ask, what is your problem with his comment? If it is true that humans have a part in the global warming, and CO2 has a part in it, you cannot save the future by doing nothing..
I like the three new episodes. I don't really understand what's everyone's problem is... And about this new film (episode 7), you are judging it already before even seeing it.
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="1547" id="3426131"]Yes, I think for Sweden it will be a good deal.[/quote] But for many shore regions propably wouldn't, or for regions that are already at the edge of becoming a semi desert or desert.
[quote who="Jafo" reply="1535" id="3425940"]Planet earth is a 'rock' it just sits there....if it gets warmer it gets warmer...end of.[/quote] What about the hydrosphere and atmosphere? These can mitigate some changes well.. Though I understand what you want to say, and I think it's maybe true.
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1529" id="3425878"]I don't believe it's correct to believe or assume that the planet has some sort of thermostat and that there is a way to 'set' it. The Earth is always approaching equilibrium but that's not the same as homeostasis.[/quote] Why do you think it is wrong to assume Earth can balance things out? It always did, tried to reach equilibrum, in your words. The whole surface is "alive", and homeostasis appers in living creatures, w
[quote who="Ekko_Tek" reply="1527" id="3425876"]You have to be careful with the term stronger - water vapour is the GHG with the strongest effect on temperature but it is very short lived compared to other GHG and the planet can self-correct high levels more easily via the water cycle. CO2 lasts from 50-200 years in the atmosphere and we've imbalanced the carbon cycle (including changes to the land and oceans) that normally removes it as part of regulating planetary temperatures. [/quote]
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1526" id="3425873"]May be the least 'contaminated' spot on the Earth, far as temperature goes.[/quote] There is no unaffected place on Earth, just think about the ozone hole, or how do you call it in English.. I dont think temperature is that different, the atmosphere is already modified.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1523" id="3425867"]This is like talking to the guards in Monty Python. It's very simple: IF CO2 has a significant effect on global temperatures THEN temperatures shouldn't repeatedly drop BEFORE CO2 levels drop. The fact that this happens over and over (and that temperatures go up before CO2) indicates that temperature is not measurably affected by CO2. It does imply that temperature affects CO2 but if that's the case, then we need to quit sw
[quote who="Raiddinn" reply="181" id="3425843"]At the very least, the two subjects I am suggesting help people recognize when they are being lied to or misled, [/quote] And ladies and gentleman. that's why it's not going to happen.
