eviator

Good call, IMO

[quote who="The_Engenieer" reply="15" id="3601030"] Im waiting until we cant use the map editor ,for the maps with open field, without so many mountains and rocks so the battles storm start happend. [/quote] Yes. I'm still unable to creating working maps in 0.62.

Yes it works. T2 units can do it too. Queueing units this way creates a kind of build order queue that gets filled on demand by available factories. The new units automatically become part of the battle group upon spawning, catch up to the dreadnought, then get into formation to do their duty. Pretty awesome way to keep your groups stocked with units. Ideally the empire tree would do a better job of making it obvious how many of each unit is already in the group so we can quickly determine wh

[quote who="Chasbo" reply="3" id="3600741"] The problem is that at the time this came to light Carson was leading in the polls for the nomination of the Republican party for President of the United States. Carson also believes in creationism. Carson is also pro guns. Carson is a fraud and a liar as evidenced by the statements he has made and the things he put in his book. Carson also has other beliefs which I strongly disagree with which I won't mention here because I don't want

Rules for Radicals rule #5. Also #12.

Boy this discussion has me really wishing the devs would tell us whether the combat speed penalty is here to stay and if so why they think it is necessary. The design is touting strategy over APM, and with funneled maps, tactical focus on group composition, and units that must commit to win or loss battles, they seem to be trying to take movement tactics completely out of the equation. I would like to see in-game evidence that group composition actually matters, and not just "my group has a T

Hey Tatsubj, I updated my post to reflect some searching I did while you were drafting your reply. Sorry for disrupting the flow of the discussion, but I wanted to avoid providing incorrect information in reply #1.

Updated from my original reply. I looked back in the August 2015 FAQ where Frogboy initially brought up the issue of Front Lines and groups moving right through each other. You have to go down to reply 40 before the first and only mention of unit suppression affecting speed in combat. That's the only clue have as to why they went this way in patch 0.50. I had mistakenly believed the speed penalty would even

The only issue with exploding dreadnoughts is that you can't get units out of the way in battlegroups, the game encourages us to use battlegroups, and degrouping units and moving them would be very micro heavy. They could put the logic into the battlegroup AI, but then the mechanic would only punish non-battlegroup play. So I dont really see them developing that mechanic.

I think the devs are pushing Frigates, Cruisers, and Dreadnoughts, so maybe that's the terminology you've heard of.

[quote who="tatsujb" reply="6" id="3600082"] but that thing isn't rotated to match the view and it doesn't show the topography of the map (and accessorarily isn't pretty) [/quote] And furthermore this is still alpha and they plan to make it better.

In addition to the above, line of sight can impact the usefulness of the empire tree. In Sins the tree shows the nearby enemy units so you can evaluate the relative strength of force. For Ashes if you can increase the line of sight, putting enemy units in the empire tree becomes possible.

Sounds like great progress, thanks for the update!

Okay, that is helpful, thanks.

I'd rather the population caps. Coercion is putting diminishing returns on an exponential mechanic. That's two opposing forces and seems like a lame and overly convoluted solution, mathematically.

This is normal. The normal AI is the level without cheats or handicaps, so it shows the true strength of the AI.

I would like pathing from factories, if the devs can do it. I'd like to know how you plan to make a sandbox style game. I have some tests of my own and no idea how to make those tests happen. The idea of different groups coordinating their relative formations is intriguing. I need to take another look at Kohan in this regard.

I like the infinite research levels in concept. For generic boosts its makes sense (logistics, resource capacity, speed, health, damage). I would like for it to be easy and obvious to see what level me and my opponents have invested in them. But as others have said, with different wording, if you only have generic boost research, that's a little meh, strategy-wise. So I also recommend more varied research that is not necessarily infinitely upgradeable. Visual assets for quick identifiacti

Are you putting them in battle groups? In battle groups all the units move together.

Great write-up, informative and good feedback for Ashes.

I was being cordial. I even said it. Sorry about the miscommunication. And Tatsubj is the only person who I do that with, and rightly so because some of his feedback is very venomous and counterproductive. Also, it seems you missed that I actually agreed with you. Your feedback was good, and I'm glad you posted it. I'll even give you a +1 as a gesture of goodwill.

Long, my first sentence was a little tongue-in-cheek, which doesn't come across too well in writing, so please disregard. Also I missed your mention of retreat. Sorry, and I agree. [quote who="LingWhisperer" reply="7" id="3599015"] They also frequently complain when the Early Access title is predictably not finished to their expectations. ...snip... I'm afraid Ashes of the Singularity might release looking more like a very fancy version of Gratuitous Space

What's noteworthy is that some of what you said is in. Perhaps it's not obvious to those just starting out: Shift click controls The empire tree idea is directly from Sins. Stardock published Sins and harkens Ashes to be like Sins but on a planet. In battle groups units do move and battle in a formation that makes sense. It's a little hard to notice because the units look similar visually. To make a battle group hit 'V'. T

This may not be a good idea, but I'll put it out there anyway: what if the Logistics tech upgrade also upgraded access to the next tier of units? A little bit like aging. First logistics allows you to build T2s, second logistics Dreadnoughts. Logistics is already a necessary upgrade in the game, so gating the T2 and T3 units in this way would not add extra burden. It also opens up strategy choices: early T2 rush or spam T1 units. Well Quanta Complexes take radioactives to build, which wou

[quote who="chemie99" reply="3" id="3598937"] Engage with one group and hold back other; once OPFOR is locked down, go zipping by [/quote] Well that sounds like a good tactic. I doubt it works. You can lock down the group, but if a unit in your zipping force gets hit, now that zipping force is also locked down.