Drexion

Do whatever tests you want, just throw in 20% of the supply/resource usage you put into carriers into the opposing enemy flak...Go on =p.

You do realize that 1 armor is just +5% hp right? heh. Disciple and LRM supply cost is 1:1, how are you producing 2:1? Cost for cost, you get 3:4 ratio of LRM vs disciple. Can 40 disciple beat 30 LRM? I don't think so!... So cost for cost, disciple lose. Supply for supply, disciple REALLY REALLY lose. And supply is important :). The thing is, you can start your disciple spam a bit earlier than they can start LRM spam. So it takes a few minutes for the TEC player to "ca

The thing is, in most games the resource vasari have "extra" of is metal...Vasari is usually buying crystal. I don't know about you, but as TEC I buy more crystal than metal (by far) as well. So good luck with that :).

Agreed that your being conservative on the bomber change =). Good thing though. Regarding the whole assailant vs disciple thing, I can only say those are the results of a ingame test... So your welcome to retest it if you wish, but until then please accept thats what happened, hehe. Given the change from 20 vs 30 to 20 vs 40 in the supply-to-supply contest, that has *definitely* changed from before... I agree that cost for cost, its not nearly as dramatic a change, but as I postulate, t

I don't know about you, but I micro most of my capital ship abilities in battle. The autocast is alright, but I do a much better job. Regarding micro, the next time someone focus fires on one of your units...Try making it run past their lines. Its funny when you see 30+ ships on the enemy side start to slowly turn around while not firing at anything... Just one small example. Your right in that you don't need 90 APM in this game, but battle manipulations are alive and well. S

Girospeck, its a neat idea. The problem is there are lots of neat ideas and only limited development resources =). So does this one idea cut the mustard of what gets done over what stays in the "to do" list? I don't think so, but thats just my opinion.

One thing worth noting is that since assailants cost more metal/crystal than disciples, raising the black market cost of metal/crystal is in effect making assailants more expensive relative to disciple. Assuming those 500m, 550c costs the number I got above was that an assailant cost 92% of two disciple. Assuming a 300m, 350c cost that number changes to 87.4%. So it would then be 20 assailant vs 35 disciple assuming old prices. So there was not only a 33% supply cost increase,

I did a test here...20 assailant vs 40 disciple...Disciple won with 9.5 of them left over. Thats a supply vs supply battle. Assuming metal price of 500, crystal of 550 (which innociv said in IRC is close to what his mod black-market change makes it)... two disciple is 500$, 80m so 900$ cost (one metal is $5). Assailant ends up being 827$. So one assailant is 92% of two disciple on a cost-for-cost basis. 40 disciple * .92 = 37 disciples. So cost for cost, the battle should have

Do a 3v1 or 4v1 (with all aggressive unfair AI in one team)...If thats too easy, add more =D If you win 9v1, well...Lets cross that bridge when we get to it.

My biggest worry here becomes the Vasari vs Advent balance. Will assailants really do well against the 4 supply disciple at a 2:1 ratio? Looking at the stats and costs, I think the disciples might win... Given advent's great synergies later on, IMO vasari should have the advantage in the early game... Testing here will be needed I think...

Just upgrade. Their aiming to release 1.04 by the end of next week anyway, you might as well experience 1.03 ;).

The only scenario I can see that will have a game last over 2 hours for "experienced" players is something like a 5v5 with 100 planets in a multi-system map. In that scenario, it may take up to 3 hours... I can't see it going beyond that. Those darn multiple-star maps are a pain ;). I'd have to agree with Innociv that most of my games online (2v2, 3v3, 3v4, 3v5, etc) end in 45-120 minutes.

This whole argument about the flaks not hurting the carriers...but the strike-craft... and new flak having to be built + moving to the front line...Its true as far as it goes, but frankly, if we are having a fleet engagement and my flak kill your strikecraft + do dps to your fleet + tank...I've gotten their money's worth. Your carriers may still be alive after the fight, but the real question is: Did I win this big battle or did you? If I won, you can't expect me to wait for you to bui

The Ironclad Online button is on the main menu, where you see "Single Player"...

As it currently stands in 1.03, it is my belief that carriers are not worth the opportunity cost (meaning you can do better with the resources/fleet supply). At least in multiplayer where people will build flak. FYI, flak has a LRM "counter ratio" of about 3:1, maybe even 3.5:1... Meaning 10 flak should be able to fight evenly with 30 LRM. Flak also seems to have around a 7:1 ratio against bomber squads and much higher for fighter squads. What does this mean ingame? Someone ca

From the tidbits Brad said, looks promising. I trust Stardock to do this the right way... My only hope is that it becomes widespread and many titles are offered.

Way to go! Definitely a game worthy of praise. Hard work can pay off, eh? -Drexion

Regarding the market prices, I think innociv's suggestion is a fine "quick-fix". It would also be the easiest to balance. Ideally, i'd rather a black market whose buy/sell price was more reflective on the *player* buy/sell patterns. Not sure how this would impact the game, but here goes: Start off a preset "good" buy/sell price. Then every time someone buys that resource, the price increases (for both buy and sell prices, maybe keeping a ratio between them?) ...If someone sells

Ehtom, RA isn't a strategy you usually decide to "go" because it is late-game... It takes so long to get all the civ labs, research, get the gates up, etc. RA is a strategy that you begin the game with... So unless you want us to always be going RA as Vasari, thats not really a answer to the late game. I've yet to see a vasari successfully convert from going non-RA in the early/mid game, then see its not going to end soon and switch over to RA in time. Not with decent players anyhow. Ha

LinkesAuge, regarding the subverters I just happen to agree with Cykur that lategame, Vasari (even in 1.02) need such "great support" to have any chance. Or they could go RA. TEC have their insane economy, advent have their great synergies, what do vasari have for lategame? Thats why I agreed a minor nerf to them was ok (assuming vasari econ is fixed). I played Vasari mainly in 1.02 (Although I liked TEC too), and I can tell ya (once again, like Cykur), I mainly went enforcers (HC) as a

Innociv, the problem with raising subverter fleet supply to 9-11 is that Vasari already have higher "supply cost" units than any other race. Thus for any given fleet, vasari have significantly less units... Such a radical supply increase on subverters (from 5 to 9-11) would likely force vasari to have to be a "fleet upgrade" above an enemy to have any chance in a battle...This of course would give the already-weak vasari economy another big wack :). An increase from 5 to 7 I could under

Thought i'd add my two cents. Overall I agree with most of innociv's suggestions. I know Cykur disagreed slightly with the bomber buff but I happen to think its necessary. Something is needed to make carriers more effective IMO, right now they have way too many counters (fast units to run them down, heck even HC kodiak, flaks, etc) and their not that effective. Regarding Subverters, I half agree with Innociv :) I agree they need some kind of nerf, I do think the numbers he listed may