Also, try moving your fleet a bit outside of the gravity well you are jumping from, as that way you can't jump into a TEC proximity minefield. Not sure about the other mines though (as to where they can be placed).
Don't all the Envoy Cruisers get that though?
Meh, it sounds sensible enough. Of course, I'm not going to run anywhere barefoot, sure our ancestors didn't have shoes, but neither did they risk treading on a dirty hypodermic needle. To make a better point, the advances in medicine and agriculture have actually made people more numerous, not healthier. In the sort of times these people are trying to emulate, there were very few humans around (comparitively) as various different things (like tigers) killed
Well, the Raloz isn't meant to be anywhere near anything that can shoot it, so shields (or lack thereof) should be a redundant point. The Neruda, on the other hand, frequently encounters hostiles (militia, hostile enemies you're trying to placate etc.) so giving it shields (and therefore shield mitigation) would be a good idea. This is especially true if the Vonturak and that santa's-sleigh thing have shields.
[quote]Makin the defender change as you arrive makes it impossible for the guy to have the chance to kill even 1 ogrov.[/quote]Why is it that, in this argument, the good strategic principles of scouting and being one step ahead of your enemy go out the window. If he's totally unprepared for my counter, then that's his problem for not keeping an eye out (and using some common sense that if my bomber assualt just failed, therefore my next assualt will be composed of fighter resistant unit
[quote]If you truly believed in the whole "if unit 1 and unit 2 do the same thing, they should have different counters" BS, then you should think that carriers shouldnt counter all 3 fleet heavy hitters (LRF, HC, Capital Ships).[/quote]Carriers counter nothing. Fighters counter LRF and Bombers counter HC and Cap. Ships. Depending on the enemy you will face, you must change units to suit the situation - building carriers will not save you if you do
[quote]Simple, intuitive, makes sense.[/quote]Except from the attacker's point of view. If the enemy has something capable of crushing whatever you have currently designed to take him out, you design something that he CAN'T easily crush in order to take the advantage. Creating something that doesn't give you the advantage is counter-intuitive (unless you're TRYING to loose), and the whole concept of "Strategy" goes out the window. This is a strategy game, yes? So perha
You make some very good points, especially regarding refineries, which I personally would like to see become more useful. The one problem I've always had regarding them, is that they are supposed to be one of the major economic advantages to playing the TEC/Vasari over the Advent, except they aren't, it just turns into a "Spam Trade, Buy From Black Market" strategy, which is A ) Boring and B ) Favours the Advent (as they are no longer at a disadvantage, because the TEC/Vasari have no wa
[quote]BUT! there is no reason why they cant rotate on the spot much faster than they do now, other than the immersion effect like you said... still, they could turn a LITTLE bit faster dont you think?[/quote]I suppose. Although really, that's what "Advanced Manouvering" is for. I've noticed one of the reasons these turns cause problems is because when you tell a fleet to move behind it, the vessels on either side of the flagship try to maintain their position rel
^It's not strategy in the colloquial sense/jargon that is associated with the field of gaming, which means calling the Sims a "non-strategic" game is perfectly justifiable given the context (videogames). The classification of the Sims as a "Strategy" game is simply a failure of the reviewers to look at it in proper context. If we weren't to look at games (or anything else, for that matter) within their own context (and therefore the associated colloquial terms) then any argument f
[quote] It is intuitive and makes sense.[/quote]No, it's totally daft, and not just from the perspective that the vessel's designers must have thought "People keep using fighters to counter our death machines. Why don't we design something NOT vunerable to fighters and gain a tactical advantage?...Nah, they'll never expect ANOTHER death machine vunerable to fighters!" it's total failure of sensibility. Not to mention the most strategy involved in protecting your planets (as Kharma
^ That's good. Invincible pirates are not fun. I think Diplomacy will bring a lot to MP. If you think of Entrenchment as the expansion for the militarily oriented player, consider Diplomacy the expansion for the civic minded players. It will bring great benefits to those who are already headed in that direction. It makes perfect sense really, just like Entrenchment; what use does a pocket player have for building a starbase, after all? If y
[quote]you realise these ships are no where near big enough to accelerate that fast that quickly... they can only accelerate for the time it takes the ship to rotate 180 degrees...[/quote]Hyperbole. Even then we appear to have reached a point where this whole turning rate argument has become muddled. I'm arguing AGAINST ultra-fast turning/acceleration rates, you seem to think I'm trying to argue for them? Or are you also against them? I was certainly not reiterating yo
The one thing I've found odd about Orgovs and Adjudicators is that they have the same armour type as bombers, which means both kinds of structure busters are countered by by fighters, making a mockery of the counter system. If your opponent is fielding fighters to protect his SB, it means you are stuck for a clever approach, and are forced to brute force your way through the defences. it doesn't make sense. An armour change for Orgovs and Adjudicators perhaps?
Turn too fast and the centrifugal force throws everything to either end of the ship and, if you go WAY too fast, might cause the engines and forward guns to be ripped out of the ship and flung into anything unfortunate enough to be in the way. THAT's why you can't perform high speed turns around your centre of mass. Also, you have to accelerate the mass of the ship around its centre of gravity, and then deccelerate that same mass as you approach the angle you want to place the shi
I just have groups of fighters float near the scouts, it seems to kill them fast enough, although the homing mines are still easier to clear by detonating them. Mines are just a pain in the rear generally, which I suppose is their purpose, just like in real warfare.
Well, here we are.
[quote]The Vasari balance vs LRF hasn't changed.[/quote]Um...a counter unit has had its damage nerfed - I call that change in balance.[quote]The Vasari balance vs LRF hasn't changed. Navigators are bad because of the cost, not because they are weaker -- they use the same ratio when fighting LRF.[/quote]If they have an even harder time of killing things, it gives the lrf that they otherwise would have killed more time to do more damage and thus kill more scouts than they otherwise would
...No matter the problems with scouts being (supposedly) too powerful I have yet to see how the expensive, paper-mache, scout that was the Jikara Navigator needed a nerf. Okay, so maybe the firepower reduction will fix the debatably OP Arcova and the definately OP Seeker, but how was the Navigator in any way OP to begin with? Its as if no consideration has gone into the origional stats of these vessels. The Jikara was hardly slaughtering LRF to begin with - something like a
Reverse drives would pose a problem in that certain forward firing ships, like lf and the Marza, could "retreat" all the way to the edge of the grav well and then be in an easy position to bail out without having to sacrifice any firepower by turning around and thus pointing their guns away from the enemy. End result would be no-one would stand and fight as the ships attacking forward would be at a disadvantage to those moving backward as the enemy actually gets a bonus for retreating -
Wasn't there a rumour that Saddam Hussien was trying to pull the same trick, except with PS2s? I'm guessing whatever cost benifits they get from using mass produced consoles will be wasted in cooling/power bills. At least a purpose built supercomputer is efficient; the heat generated by this thing could probably start nuclear fusion!
EDIT: I would say he means the beam pact. @ Top Vasari: I think the main problem is not what they didn't do, but what they did, which actually seems rather insensible. I mean, where did the idea to nerf ALL the scouts' damage come from? The consensus in the patch changes thread seems to be for no nerf at all, and just a seeker specific HP/Shields/Armour nerf, so where they got the crazy idea to nerf the Jikara/Arcova damage from I shall never kno
^On the plus side, at least you aren't lead by Gordon Brown. Back on topic: I think the people who are actually arguing in favour of the arcing turns seem to be under the impression that this is WWII and their ships are all little [i]sturmtruppen[/i] who can dodge bullets when they're moving because the enemy actually has to aim. Let me tell those people that ships in Sins (flak excluded) always fire with 100% accuracy and power, so no matter how much your vessels
Okay WTF? 90% of that stuff I agree with, even the Sova RM buff, but reducing the DPS of the Jikara Navigator? This thing needs a DPS buff, not a nerf! Might as well start fighting LRM spam with colony frigates now, for all the good it will do. As for the Arcova, it was just about perfect as far as scouts go, and don't get me started on the Seeker; it's still a meatshield that outclasses every other scout. While you have hopefully killed the lum-spam (good
Agreed. Arcing turns are fail.[quote]so you are saying have each ship turn to a heading that wont have it run into a fleet/mines (say 30-50 degrees) and then move, regardless of if other ships have reached similar positions, right? but then exactly as you said, ships with slower turn rates get left behind (though this would happen anyway)[/quote]I belive that's what he's saying. To put a finer point on it, although the slower ships get left behind they are not only more du
