[quote] GameStats: 8.8 http://www.gamestats.com/objects/775/775249/ [/quote] That's just aggregated press scores like gamerankings or metacritic, but combined with user votes (not a great idea).
Doesn't Sins support UPNP? If your router supports that and you have no idea what you're doing with the port forwarding, just hunt around for that option and enable it (and take off any port forwarding to 6112 that you've done).
[quote] Ram frigates? I own both versions of Homeworld, and I have never heard of such a ship. Fighters could Kamikaze in HW 1, but you had to order them to do so. ANd I've never seen captial ships ram into each other. They would fire on enemies automatically when they came in range, but they wouldn't move. Now if you set them to agressive, they would attack without being ordered to do so. But this caused problems, since they would pursue anything that came into reasonable ra
[quote] Well, they're built into the maps themselves, so a toggle wouldn't work with the current system since they can't just be attached/detached to a map. If nobody else gets around to it, it's probably very possible to take them out of the current default maps, I'll fiddle with the Galaxy Forge tonight and see. [/quote] Sure, they (not the planet, but simply the colony on it) could be automatically removed from the map. It could mess up the bal
[quote] Less fluid? How so? Ships will get into range of one another... and sit there, unless you tell them otherwise, and even then they're not terribly clever at bringing their powerful weapons to bear while moving. Homeworld 2 actually has motion during combat, and ships are mildly clever about orienting themselves to attack while moving; not
To the double post: Homeworld ran on a Pentium II. Massive unit counts? Do you want me to go back to, oh, Total Annihilation? The Command and Conquer games may even come somewhat close for sheer army size, depending on how ridiculous the match got or the map/mod being played was, and they handle it fine. I'm simply making an observation about what I view to be a negative point about the game. No need to get all weird and defensive.
[quote] I am guessing that multiple battles on multiple fronts with these minimum system requirements demands a certain attention to a.i. allocation with respect to the vernier movements and actions of every single unit within the simulated galaxy, though, this is just a guess. [/quote] Homeworld ran on a Pentium II. It's not enough to completely ruin the game, but it is distracting. Most RTSs (including land-based ones like C&C3, AOE3, RoN, etc.)
You're about at the 'recommended' requirements (though I'm not sure about the mobile GPU). You could probably go higher. It's really not that demanding a game.
Yes. Did you try the requirements? [QUOTE] Windows XP SP2/Vista 1.8 GHz Processor 512 MB RAM (1 GB for Vista) 128 MB DirectX 9 3D Video Card 1.6 GB hard disk space DirectX 9.0c or higher Broadband Connection for Internet Multiplayer [/QUOTE]
[quote] Less fluid? How so? [/quote] Ships will get into range of one another... and sit there, unless you tell them otherwise, and even then they're not terribly clever at bringing their powerful weapons to bear while moving. Homeworld 2 actually has motion during combat, and ships are mildly clever about orienting themselves to attack while moving; not to mention ramming, short range point defense guns, and other things that encourage movement.
As here. Makes sense.
Consists of two images...
There's more movement in Homeworld 2's combat. Sins' is less... fluid.
