Gauntlet03

Yeah no need Ron, the salt analogy was great

There currently is the ability to traverse the Z axis. You can use it, its just very un-user friendly at the moment. Thats why what I said is not a circular argument. Considering how strongly you seem to feel about these things perhaps you should spend a few hours reading recent posts and such so that you can become re-acquainted with the issues and the current system?

The way you speak of things you seem to envision that each star contains a massive 3d environ where planets and such revolve around it. This isn't the case currently. Each star or planet is stationary and is connected by lines (phase lanes) to other such planets. Each planet is surrounded by a bubble of playable area. Depending on the mass of the planet/star this increases or decreases the bubble... IE the Gravity Well. The total area we are playing at any given time is actuall

Okay in the beta stages its not very sporting to tell us we should be happy with the possibility of modding in features we want. Its a beta... I don't want to mod these features I want them in the game. Personally I like the idea of a very slow orbit for buildings and asteroids. The collision issue can be fixed by ships simply having more than a bad pathing AI. the game's in system tactics are just too basic right now, its not challenging, even when it is, its not ver

PS- Yeah I really respect the argument of calling the guy a 'moron' you should apologize. Instead of moving planets we could orbit buildings and asteroids, thus allowing you to plan much niftier attacks.

Okay, well I think your both making plenty of good and bad points. Firstly I think it is unfair to define this game's main selling point as orbits/gravity and 3D movement. I never thought of it that way, nor saw any mention of the sort. It is about 4X and RTS combined. Everyone seems to have agreed that 4X is woefully lacking at the moment. The general opinion on 3D right now, is that it should be in, the problem as I see it, and many others, is that with the current set up it

Do you like the idea of command range being limited by a building like I suggested better? You would only need 2 for the majority of the game, what with its range giving you a 3 system umbrella of safety, by the time you might go further you really ought to have colonized some new holdings, thus making the issue less important. it wouldn't massively alter or slow the game, but it would add more depth. The Command Cruiser's only fault is it is just too darn easy to kill and it j

This idea came up in a thread regarding command cruisers, but I really liked it so I felt I should say it here- Ship Range Limitations: Basically your NON-Capital ships (meaning capital ships are immune to this) would have a limit to how far they can move beyond your controlled space without incurring a penalty. Fleets in adjacent uncontrolled/enemy system = no penalty Fleets more than adjacent to controlled territory = 1/2 antimatter regen and 1/2 dmg Ne

but pacifists would always lose?

I love the restricted movement idea, that is really good... simulates supplies but is easy to maintain, I would do it as a ship though, instead I would expand on the range via a 'military supply base' or techs. Though a base would be better! you can move up to 1 jump away from colonized systems with frigates/cruisers, but if a base is at said system you can go 3 jumps from it. No stacking. You should be able to move farther even without said base, but your anti-matter regen, and rate of

you can toggle it on and off

the supreme commander system would greatly spice things up

Ron if you were reading my posts a little more carefuly you'd see that I'm well aware that they prevent a bypass. In fact as of now that is their Only purpose. I'm complaining about how they have stripped away a valid tactic and allot of depth, especially in scouting. Complaints that it hurts the AI to have the trapping version are frankly invalid considering that it forces the AI to stand and fight rather than retreating. Which as we all know is the AIs greatest flaw. Also the AI was

you can have any pseudo science you like, it won't change the fact that the way it is now, or the way you suggest (2 phase Inhibs block a lane between them) makes them far far less valuable, and tactically much less important, as the border systems where the battle will occur is not going to benefit from the inhibitor. Great they can't bypass the system, but who cares? They wipe it out, take the planet, and then move on anyways. At least if it punished retreaters it would have a tactica

it would actually fix the gauss turret if it could be moved, all be it very slowly, and obviously not outside of the orbit ring.

Awesome Idea, you could justify a 1-1 ratio of tactical to fleet, because the structure would cost you something.

Like I said before, I would be happy with an increased cost in time or anti-matter for retreating fleets. Frankly trapping the AI is not what I'm worried about, I'm mostly thinking of the fact that right now defenses are not terribly powerful. Especially as someone pointed out, the enemy can probe my systems with no consequences. They now know the location of all of my defenses. Frankly its very easy to bypass them, destroy the civilian structures and ships, and then destroy the defense

I like the TEC designs as pirate ships more than regular military... the pirates simply use outdated and jurry rigged designs, such as the current flak frigate and the Kodiak space tank of stupid. The TEC ships should be very similar but more intelligent, the Flak frigate should be changed to reflect this its just too boat like now. Notably the Kodiak should really have that big top turret move... it could be the only tracking turret and I'd forgive it all of its ugliness.

but it doesn't make any scientific sense, and way more importantly it discourages scouting and takes away the possibility of using the 'stranding' as a tactic. Thus de-complicating tactics.

The Z axis in HW was important because their were important things both up and down from your position, in Sins currently there is not. There is no true open field, where below me a wonderful resources is located and above and to the left is a small enemy encampment, everything is directly ahead behind, to the right or left. They would need to change the galactic plain to be say at least 3 layers of height, and put systems up and down, affecting the Z axis of phase entrances. This would add allo

I don't think the game alienates people, I've been showing it to gamers and its been getting a few doubts, but when they see the graphics they say ooooh, when they see the scale they say ahhhh, when they play it they have fun. I think your being overly critical, firstly I think it has a solid grasp of RTS, its missing other factions and a competent AI thats it. As to 4X it only has the scale. So you could argue its not living up to that, but I think allot of things are not impl

mmm the penalty/bonus should be immune to said bombardment.

I like the idea of negative effects having been found via exploration, but they should be rarer than the good effects, and it should be randomized of course. With this implemented you could reasonable have more discoveries pop up and make the exploration cheaper as your empire will not gain quite so much in the end.

You mention, small but very strong fleets... I kinda wish I'd see an advanced race that went with numerous, and easy to produce in large quantities, but not terribly strong. Just the occasional advanced race that like the strategem of overwhelming numbers, rather than limiting themselves to just ten reallly strong ships which are undoubtedly less flexible.

I had this happen to me once, I was zooming in, and it was an excessively large fleet, even for me lol. 100+ ships against about 75-50 enemy ships engaged in a star system, they were retreating.