@Stratt - No doubt since you took its planet it is clearly sending you a message. So can you hear it?
Spartan
To add insult to injury the AI should ask for some monetary and resource help to redevelop its newly acquired planet. The justification should be because it had sacrificed so much for the alliance and invested so many resources into getting it now it needs some help.
Great. I was really worried as well. It simply did not seem logical to just stop everything after all the time and effort invested into this phase. Moreover it is inconsistent with best practices. I secretly started to think maybe we are pushing for something that you guys don't really want to make for whatever reasons and decided to put a stop to it by stonewalling the community for a month or s
@Tholan - I am also in the same camp. I cant help but think of Stars! and wonder why?... Regarding the paper idea, I have also considered doing something like that for a long time. Since GCII was announced to be exact. I so want to see a Pax/Stars!/MoO hybrid. If only I could program.... I have simply not had the time to do it in earnest. As to the question, I firmly believe it would be. Hell do it as a group project. Ultimately it may be a purely academic affair but given t
BTW: Since no one has reported it yet and there might be a compatibility issue with the SLI drivers for dual G80s I guess I will. I suspect it is not the game however. When the SLI performance mode is set to "force split-frame rendering" you only get half a screen. The "force alternate frame rendering 1" works well however - for what its worth.
@dork - I did not mean for the current capital ships to be increased. My comment was for the megaship size.
ROFL!! I had entertained the thought of adding the shields as well. But refrained from doing so (for now). I want to fully test how the AI handles the extended range and other modifications I made first. So have you added the banks yet?
With the current settings I'm using I think things are good. I will extend the range to 8500 for tactical reasons yet to further help the AI regarding defensive placement.
My saves average about 60MBs. But then I dont build large fleets. I suspect they will refine the code to more of a ZIP or RAR compression soon.
What?? 24 BC at one planet? Something is wrong in your game.
I think if the size gets boosted more then 300% of the current caps things will look bad.
Those issues are easily over come. I set the cost to 500 credits, 75 metal & crystals. I also boosted the hull points to 4k as well as doubled the regen and increased the range to 8k. It is good now - I think. The AI is using them quite nicely. The placement still sucks but the extended range helps it a lot. I'm even thinking of extending it to 9k. I'll just have to restrain myself regarding my placements. Update: I set the burst count to 5 (looks cool) and the delay to .2.
Nice - cool tip. I also extended the range to 8k.
@P5y - no worries brother. We all have different tastes. In my opinion a game inherently designed to promote spamming as the core strategy for victory, is short changing itself; unless the developers are trying to target the 8 - 15 year old consumer market.
@Mul - your right. I thought your post was only about leaving the GW hunting trade ships and not about leaving while not in phased space.
A decent fleet commanded by a human player would easily takeout the guns by consolidated firepower.
@Shadow - that idea has already been fielded and appears to be rather well supported by the community. We have not received any feedback from the devs about it however.
@lord - yep sure did. Do you remember the sandbag wall tactic? I'm an old school gamer. Shoot my specialization in grad school was global modeling. It is basically computer simulation design and game theory combined. @lock - thanks for the support. If they allow custom soundtracks and develop most of the stuff being suggested by those of us on the micro side of the house, then the hours of productive real life activity that will lost for the average gamer will be staggering
I fully support a 20% scale increase in the planet size as well as at least a 10% reduction in the sizes of some of more obviously over sized orbital structures. Additionally maybe it is just me but the ship repair object seems as if it should be on its side. In fact I'm all for a remake of the model because there is something just not quite right with it but I cant put my finger on it.
Formations are only practical in as much as there is a clear and present benefit from employing them on a tactical level. If there are no screening or enhanced firepower and targeting bonuses then they are nothing more then eye candy. We dont want that do we?
Hmmm.... I'm a micro person but I'm advocating what you classify as a macro position as well as other micro people as far as I understand things right now. The macro people want the spamfest not us micro people. We [the micros] want combined arms, critical systems, coherent tactical control, comprehensive strategic development and planning options, unit/object configuration, a robust set of formations, group and task force options, more custom game setup variables, advanced unit manag
Of course it does. File optimization is very low on the priority list for such endeavors. It is one of the last things worked for logical reasons.
I firmly disagree with the ideas postured by P5y. Such a game would be far better as an ant wars simulation. The tactical and strategic variables and are in effect negated in such a system. It simply becomes a grinder model and such a system takes away any of the fun at least for me. I would be hard pressed to call such an incarnation of a game strategic, tactical or even a simulation.
How dare you say such blasphemy! CnC3 is mighty fine!!! I have C&C and frankly got bored with it within five hours. I simply don't feel that "one more turn" passion for it. Whereas with Sins, even in its current state, I have that feeling. I dont know why this is so given the C&C i
My solution is simple, I never ally. The policy nips this issue in the bud.