Actually, Jake, if you bothered to think before speaking, you would realize where my point lies. Space combat is a lot like modern naval and air combat. You have three dimensions to worry about, and formation is pretty hard to keep once combat is started amoung the smaller vessels. The only difference is that all vessels can move three directions, which doesn't actually change tactics that much. Now, StarCraft adds in marines and other ground elements. You send in dropships, have tank
Amensotep
Um, Jake, being married and exercising do not make you social or nonfat... They just mean you got married and exercise. Now, I'm a big fan of strategy games. I like some micromanagement. But Civ 3 is a pure micro game. That's not how it works in real life. I want something that simulates real combat, and to be honest, this game is the closest I have seen. It's ironic that it's the scifi games, like StarCraft and this one, that actually simulate real combat rather well while managing t
Einsteins theory of relativity is completely separate of anything to do with antimatter. The only differences between antimatter and ordinary matter are the fact that their spins, charge and some other quantum numbers are opposite. Quantum? Yes quantum mechanics. Antimatter has to do with that, not with anything Einstein ever said. Oh, yay, another t
Actually, if you stop and check, I never said it wasn't. Einstein's theory and Newton's theory are both bases... and both have to be modified to operate properly in modern physics. Newton's laws don't work over a certain number, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity fails to account for antimatter. We have British physicist Paul Dirac to thank for modifying Einstein's theory enough to account for particles with negative mass properties, and in fact Einstein's theory can't allow for the existance o
22. Figured, instead of alcohol, I'd blow my summer away with games and designing the ultimate entropy engine. Long story.
Warning... may offend fans of science... But, I felt like balancing the karma of this thread. Intended only in good fun. And, because I like to poke fun at myself. "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein. "You are living proof of Einstein's Theory of Infinity." Me, once said to a teacher. "'Religion: noun. 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and
Well, this makes things bad on my end. I have to rename my Stardock Constructors now. Highly effective, but they don't exactly look the greatest.
I noticed that myself... Much to my disappointment. I've never managed to build one yet.
Okay, time for size updates: Tiny: Scoutships and Hellfire Darts. Now, I call them darts instead of fighters for a reason. Mainly, using them on capital ships is like throwing darts at a tank. Small: Frigates, early armed troop transports, the occasional scoutship, and the occasional improved constructor. Tend to be either Hellfire or Succubus types, with a few Dis and Demon Lord thrown in. Medium: Battlecruisers, armed troop transports, the occasional early Lord
Well, something fun to do is to name the ships according to your sense of humor. Like naming a scout "Deathbringer" and a destroyer with more disruptors than attach points "Pinpricker." Then again, I do strange things. Like army a transport with disruptors. Makes it really fun when a minor race tries to take on the troop transport, only to find out the troop transport is better armed than they are.
Do a Cakewalk game with only the Iconians in the largest galaxy you can stand. Expand rapidly, focus on research and moral in construction.
I prefer to name the ship classes, then send them to die. Preferably, humorous names. Like, Fangirl. It's really funny when you see "Fangirl 134 destroyed by Yor Fleet 3."
Low system memory. Or, you could post the debug here...
Its true that modern science is built on a series of Reasoned assumptions. What separates it from religion is what happens when evidence comes to light that contradicts something instead of burying their heads in the sand and mumbling about faith scientists begin to search for more data to either confirm or deny that evidence. As to something better coming along to replace
Huh... won't let me edit my post... I was about to delete that worthless rant and post something different... Had some time to review it and decide I should lay off the coffee. I actually edit a lot of my posts, usually before posting them. I have the people skills of a land mine. Okay, here's what I was going to post in it's place: Okay, all of this arguing about paradigms is nice, but what about the original subject? Assuming dark matter exists, assuming science is right
Okay, why are people using one disproven theory (Einstein's) to argue about another disproven theory (Newton's)? Einstein's Theory of Relativity itself was disproven when his basic equation was modified to allow for negative numbers. This, in turn, eventually led to the discovery of antimatter. And yet, ever since then, everyone talks about Einstein and uses his theory as a base. Well, here's my theory: No one in science knows more than guesses they can back up with mathematics, mathe
Hmm... I think I'll temporarily set the journals section as my homepage...
Well, some would call your leader a hero... I call mine Lazy Slob. Of course, Lazy Slob does tend to conquer a lot of worlds... And, really, I wouldn't pay for multiplayer. I bought this game so I wouldn't have to.
Hmm... Very good points... I love the amount of thought you put into this...
Um, guys, Einstein was wrong. And one type of particle proves it: Antimatter. Antimatter was only discovered after Einstein's theory of relativity was modified to include negative numbers. So, basically, all theories that use Einstein's equation are not actually working with real physics, but with a flawed theory that was corrected back around the time it was come up with. Now, keep in mind Einstein's theory also ignores time, which anyone who deals reactions can tell you is very important to th
Huh... Must have been tired when I read this... Sometimes, I'm denser than a rock... Begs the question: How can this be properly implemented without breaking the game? I mean, why waste time fighting Dread Lord ships when you can just steal them?
Correct. You would run into a wall. However, you'd run into a wall that's currently travelling faster than the speed of light in the same direction you are going in. This is assuming the laws of physics affect the universe equally. Eventually this wall will probably stop expanding (or even stop existing), but that comes sometime around the heat-death of the universe. Now, for cloaked ships, we need a counter. After all, why give people ships that powerful unless there's a way to detec
Actually, there's a very simple way that can work: Make the pirates a minor race. Would be interesting to see the pirates and Snathi tag-team the Iconians sometime...
Okay, I know we all have our build strategies. But, in my case, I have several. I refer to them as construction styles. Basically, it's a template for how you are building the ship. For example, with my Terran fleets, Succubus-style ships tend to be fast ships with little weapons or armor, often able to simply outrun enemy fleets. Hellfire-style ships are weapons heavy, Dis-style ships tend to try to balance weapons and armor, and Demon Lord-style ships always use the most advanced technology I
Actually, my best-armed ships tend to be medium-hulled. But that's simply because I use them as mobile weapons platforms to distract enemy fleets while my battlecruisers are being built. But, yeah, I like this idea. Still, what's stopping you from making your own?