HateDread

Trying to build something with multiple engineers is still broken. 1. Select multiple engineers. 2. Send them to build something (happens if building one thing or multiple buildings using shift key). 3. Observe only one engineer actually building, while the others move into position like they will help, but do not. This bug is crazy frustrating. If I need to build x number of buildings really quickly, I don't want to have to individ

I would love to see CIWS systems (point-defence against missiles, I suppose you could say). Like this bad boy; http://www.doolwind.com/images/blog/phalanx.jpg Imagine the barrage of missiles coming in, and the awesome-looking rapid-fire shooting some of them down! I've always loved that look in games (and on the Galactica ;) ).

[quote who="tatsujb" reply="14" id="3597704"] Quoting HateDread, reply 6 Keep in mind that there is probably a technical advantage to making all units hover - you can have them turn quicker and move sideways I the real word yeah, this applies. Not in Ashes. It's annoying as hell that

Got my extra key :)

Keep in mind that there is probably a technical advantage to making all units hover - you can have them turn quicker and move sideways (versus having to actually move forward and turn if they had wheels or had tank treads and weren't stationary). This means that pathfinding is likely far simpler, and this would decrease the CPU load of having so many units - compare making objects in space move from A to B whilst avoiding each other with moving those objects along 'turning' paths

Agreed, plus right-clicking a unit icon in the factory's bottom UI panel removing one of that unit from the build queue (versus having to right click on the icon in the queue directly).

I hope the bug with multiple engineers not joining in when placing buildings with multiple engineers selected is fixed! Drives me crazy.

[quote who="tatsujb" reply="17" id="3597188"] @hatedread actually not a bad idea at all. the way you proposed it it could be balanced enough. althout you'd needs land units to generally move a lot faster to correctly respond. [/quote] Yeah, the idea of giving air units more impact and allowing them to form battlegroups on their own, as well as transport units, is exciting to me. Imagine looking at the strategic view and seeing bands of aircraft movin

Good god I would kill for some air transports. You're fighting a planet-wide war but nobody's invented logistics or transportation? :p The air transports could be built in platoons like ground units (maybe 5 per group?), and could only pick up a battlegroup if they were together in their own transport "battlegroup", and if you don't have enough they won't pick up any (so as to not splinter the land units into some in air and some on ground). Would also be great to move

[quote who="Krasmoth" reply="6" id="3596877"] that is unfortunate with the map bug though glad it has been fixed. I think that this calls for a rematch sometime later, I'll let you pick the map. HateDread, I wouldn't mind playing some games with you to help better your skills. My steam name is Karath. Send me a message or friend invite. Have to let you know I live in Denmark so there might be a time zone difference [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] There are ma

I would kill for a replay of these games to better my skills. Brad, you should totally record/stream a full match!

I believe you can use the non-numpad +/- keys to change the game speed :) And I agree - some units (especially engineers) are a bit slow sometimes! EDIT: Oh and welcome to the forums! :D

This looks great! Love the circular info and the economic tab (rates and total supply), although I wish the red/green of the + and - boxes for the metal and radioactives rates were less washed-out. So important for them to be clearly visible out of the corner of the eye.

[quote who="TAG_Utter" reply="16" id="3596503"] Good we are getting a point. Many think the same, the empire tree isnt't usefull in AOTS, i think we all want all information in field right? or rong? So what options we have in ower minds i already show 1 but what you guys like to have ? Option 1 -If the empire tree showldnt sta

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="9" id="3596237"] I'm struggling with the empire tree as well. Thoughts? [/quote] I've honestly never found the empire tree useful (same as in Sins) - it's always been way too many pieces of information presented in an almost identical fashion. Add on the fact that you can't organize the information by location as easily in Ashes, since in Sins you at least had discrete planets (with names) that peopl

This makes me think how nice it would be to see terrain-specific FX one day (not enough room in performance right now, I imagine) such as snow. Knocking over trees and/or explosions leaving craters would be cool too, speaking of terrain.

Large-scale warfare and economic management is still pretty micro-intensive (some of you can handle that, but hear me out). These are some suggestions to help ease the issue. Factory assisting - allow factories to assist other factories and ‘steal’ part of their work queue. This allows for the dynamic scaling of production without re-creating queues on the other factories - new factories can be creat

@Frogboy, you're right, I don't know any, and I didn't even know that the terrain was procedurally generated! That's awesome. I made it sound worse than it is, but I'll try it on the highest settings and probably eat my own words.

[quote who="Wagnard" reply="5" id="3595651"] I guess there will be performance improvement for the future? As the graphics (not the art but the quality) is not really fantastic and it bring my 970 to a crawl. I hope there is still quite a few optimization here and there that can be made. [/quote] I hope so! That terrain texturing looks pretty old school sometimes :p

[quote who="tatsujb" reply="1" id="3595666"] "Please I'd like you to insert the giant alien probe right into my butt right over here" -you I feel like maybe you want to be explained why what you just asked for is the opposite of what you want. I'm just gonna ask first though, so I know if I

[quote who="Paulusss" reply="5" id="3595704"] That's a shame, i was hoping you guys hired him, since his the best AI programmer there is, i wonder who stole him from us [e digicons]:P[/e] [/quote] You're not giving the other AI greats enough credit :p

[quote who="Drizzt321" reply="68" id="3593566"] Mostly what I'm used to, that's all. Although the difference is probably in that SupCom let's you select and command units from Strategic View. For AS it sounds like the Devs don't want that, which makes sense. Or maybe a click/click-drag? Click to zoom to default zoom, click-drag to define the exact area to zoom to? [/quote] I feel like it'd make sense in this view (and if this is how it looked/worked) for

Sounds like a fantastic idea - I'm sick of playing campaigns with missions connected via a weak story. Modern strategy games (hell, even some from the early '00s) have moved to using a campaign map of sorts. I think using PA as an example of this approach not working isn't fair - the game had all sorts of problems and there are too many variables involved to draw such simple conclusions. Plenty of games have done it right, and it made the campaigns worth playing. W

Just wondering; is a better/earlier notification or warning about resources running out in this update? For example, once you get below 10-20% of a resource, it should flash or change in some way. In the heat of battle I have no hope of noticing it (although the bars that diminish may now make it easier). When I hear the announcement that I'm out of radioactives, for example, it's too late to avoid a big penalty :)

Looks great! The bars and green/red rate colours is what I have always wanted. Quick UI bug, not sure if it's been addressed: The button to disband the selected battlegroup only works if that battlegroup is selected alongside units that are not within that group. If only the battlegroup itself is selected, the button to disband it doesn’t work. The relevant hotkey disbands the battlegroup as expected in both situations.