BTW, since there is only one gravity well of conflict, I often leave a set up like this run overnight as a screensaver. Have the enemy set to Unfair Aggressor, and they'll send heavier fleets allowing for more awesome space battles to watch.
numerarius5988am
In particular, the pirate base's gravity well, most commonly, on the Random Small map. I don't know why, but that seems to be the usually divider between two opponents. Anyhow, here is how I make use of it: This is the general layout of the particular random configuration of this random map, though that last two times I played on it a pirate base also separated me from my opponent, but here it is: <img src="http://i1010.photobucket.
If you ban people for having a specific type of speech, then you are limiting freedom of speech. You banned due to the particular discussion about ryat squads, so you are limiting freedom of speech. Banned for carrying a fully automatic assault rifle which is weaker than a pistol with a scope.
For a siege battle, it would be nice to trade off some logistic slots for some extra tactical slots.
Banned for improper capitalization, and also lack of capital ships.
Banned for limiting freedom of speech. Even if you are Master Chief, you are still not Chuck Norris.
Banned for chasing the Ryat Squad.
Cool, with splash damage ships with antimatter could do kamikaze attacks. Sort of like the Argonev's Last Resort.
Example, as if anyone needed an example... I'm just showing off my Argonev and fleet kicking butt.
This was a suggestion of member C.I. in addressing Itharus about screenshots that wouldn't be seen: [quote who="C.I." reply="4" id="2402485"]post them! start a thread with your pictures, or add to that one picture thread that was up a few months ago. if u go back a couple of pages u may find it. or mediafire them and provide links or something, but i'd go for the thread idea .[/quote] However, it has been a few hours and I think it is a good idea,
[quote who="Ryat" reply="15" id="2402494"]I mostly go TEC myself, just love the idea that they initial did not have a fully realized military force until the Vasari came. They then scrapped, fought and used whatever they could to defend themselves. I have always liked that characteristic.[/quote] Kinda like the A-Team in space?
This would be the month that I could have Best Buy update my computer to Windows 7, I'm not sure I want to though... especially with that I'd be updating to the 64-bit because my Vista is 64-bit.
[quote who="Will the Great" reply="4" id="2402402"]I think having to resupply things like food and air is a little extreme, but I do like the idea of finite antimatter stores, and of normal weapons using a tiny amount of antimatter.[/quote] Question is, do ships convert matter to antimatter onboard? In view of the equation of E=mc^2, both anti-matter and matter are "matter" in the sense of containing the same quantity of energy per mass (just that anti-matter and matter
Banned for insulting my mom... oh wait, she married my stepdad... nevermind. I elect you as President.
[quote who="Will the Great" reply="16" id="2402404"]Giving it the same fire rate as the Kortul's pulse beams is way way too much, too. It'd be fun, sure, but it wouldn't make for an interesting game. Now, a dedicated capital with nothing but that superlaser and with a cooldown (30 seconds, say), THAT would be a good idea.[/quote] Well, the reason for that idea is that I'd want the Vasari battleship and the Kol to be balanced. I suppose that the Vasari Kortul
Banned for being afraid of many things without reason, but not fearing a Q. :P
[quote who="eoncommander" reply="38" id="2402375"] The last sentence I used a verb participle, sciens, which I think would mean "knowing". Otherwise, I'd just be repeating scientia. Would "sine habes scientiam" work better? I've only studied Wheelocks on my own as of last year, but I try to keep the knowledge fresh because it is a really cool language. participles are not verbs, they are adjectives. so yes, sine habes scientiam works better. if you want to be technical, sine scienti
I don't think so. Depends how you upgrade them. I've had my Argonevs destroy a few Orkulus, on it's own. Don't know if the Orkulus was fully upgraded though. I had set up my first game of Entrenchment so that I would be allies with an unfair aggressor Vasari, having locked teams. After all planets had been colonized and all gravity wells, except magnetic clouds had a fully upgraded Argonev (with the upgrades of 2 weapons systems, 3 structural integrity, and 3 hangar space), I saved game and r
Banned for your body being composed of the elements.
Ok, moved it. I'm not used to being able to move a thread. On WrongPlanet.net, only moderators can do that. Vasari are cool too. I play mostly as either TEC or Vasari. Advent are a bit weird to me.
What would be really cool is to have 4 of each of the three faction's starbases, fully upgraded, battle eachother in a stellar gravity well.
[quote who="eoncommander" reply="36" id="2402342"] Navis is the singular, which is correct when considering a single ship. Naves, is plural. this is true. since i was thinking in terms of Trader/Terran Defense Navy, didnt consider that it should be singluar. Neque loquor neque scribo, sed lego. (btw, there's no verb in your last sentence)[/quote] Well, I'm thinking that since it is only the Capital ships which have the prefix acronym of TDN, that it
Banned for making a false allegation.
[quote who="eoncommander" reply="32" id="2402294"] Quoting numerarius5988am, reply 31But as for the Latin idea... Terrestris Defensionis Navis. "Ship of Terran Defense." wouldnt it be naves? ships? and is defensionus even a word? or do you not even speak a word of latin, and just found a website to do it for you?[/quote] Navis is the singular, which is correct when considering a single ship. Naves, is plural.
Would it be only in a single gravity well or would it be an entirely customized set up of everything?