Cykur

Cykur

Joined Member # 635909
4 Posts 495 Replies 888 Reputation

Buff Siege Frigates Increase Hp/shields/armor?: N Change armor type (currently light)?: N Decrease Resource cost?: N Decrease Supply Cost?: Y Increase Bombardment damage?: N Make TEC Heavy Fallout Active (currently passive)?: Y Reduce Heavy Fallout effect time (currently 6 minutes)?: No reason to if you make Fallout Active Reduce Xp value (currently 65xp)?: Y Siege Frigates should be kind of fragile...trus

566 Replies 1,292,305 Views

[quote]Which, if true, would result in lots of lightening strikes (against which we are well protected), but no EMP. EMP is not free electrons hitting electric devices. it is electromagnetic radiation (photons) hitting metals and producing / increasing their electric charge.[/quote] I'm pretty tired of writing the same thing over and over again, especially since it seems like you didn't bother to read the thread. I went into a lot more detail earlier in the thread, in

153 Replies 445,152 Views

[quote]i am pretty sure it is the curvature of the earth and not the atmosphere. the atmosphere is also going to be there when you blow it up in space. actually in space you have MORE atmosphere to pass through.[/quote] It isn't about how much atmosphere is penetrated, it is how much area can be covered before it hits the atmosphere. So YES, it is about the curvature of the planet. I wrote one of the long detailed posts earlier talking about that......

153 Replies 445,152 Views

[quote]Negligible, one of the necessary conditions to generate a wide-area EMP like discussed here is to be above the atmosphere entirely. What? why? The higher you are the greater the area affected due to the curvature of the earth shielding further away locations. But there is a downside that the higher you are the less POWER the EMP will have due to having had longer to disperse. Some suggested using multiple missiles at a below orbital level to deal with the power di

153 Replies 445,152 Views

The problem I see here is that we don't always get to dictate the terms of a battle. If someone else forces a battle at a place you MUST defend or risk losing the game, you will not have the luxury to whittle at vulnerable ships. You will have to destroy their main damage dealers or lose the game. That said, carriers still have a place in the game, especially for people with good micro. Against the right person, you might get a lot of mileage out of these tactics.</p

5 Replies 4,117 Views

Severun Overseer: Reactive Nanites is a powerful ability, but these ships are very unwieldy to use and expensive to boot. 360 ability use is probably too much, so will vote. Increase Firing Arc : Y Enforcer Increase Damage: Y Subjugator Targetting AI could be improved.: Y 360 ability use.: N Increase the firing arc of repair ability only. Channeling should remain at least for Subj

566 Replies 1,292,305 Views

[quote]PLUS: LRM vs Illum isn't as losing a battle as you'd think. They do better than Assailants, that's for sure.[/quote] Disagree. From a pure statistics perspective, this seems true, but in practice a skilled Advent player will drive his Illums through the mass of LRM, turn and fly back through them. The LRM have to turn to keep firing, but Illuminators that don't have a specific target and are just moving around will fire at anything in range with their side beams and

167 Replies 73,495 Views

[quote]In the case of the early LRM rush, which this thread seems to be focusing on, the real issue that's at stake is that there is no early game counter to an LRM rush. Carriers don't work as they are typically higher in the tech trees than LRM and more importantly the lower tech flaks render the fighters nearly useless. HC's aren't a solution either, too deep in tech. What the game needs is an adjustment that allows you to counter an opponent that masses LRMs early on. As it stands, m

167 Replies 73,495 Views

Cykur's Condensed Version of this wordy "Handy Tip Guide" 1. Use Long Range frigates to attack turret hard points from outside their range. 2. When you attack make sure your ships are set to jump as a fleet so they don't arrive in small groups. 3. Don't send your Light Frigates ahead to die before your Long Range Frigates are in formation and ready to attack. 4. Don't spam scouts unless you know what you are doing, they ca

14 Replies 8,740 Views

[quote]oh absoluetely love it. advent can kill vasari= NERF THEM!!!!111oneoneone[/quote] I was playing TEC at the time, actually. Everyone has times when they have to pull back and regroup. The Guardian is the only support cruiser in the game that can interfere with a cap ships ability to move. If it was purely a defensive ability, I wouldn't even care, but it isn't right to just push someone's high level cap ship around rendering it almost helpless until you manage

47 Replies 42,288 Views

OK, enough has already been said about Repulse being an overpowered ability. I'm not going to rehash the whole argument about how a couple Guardians can effectively hold off a fleet of HC's. I want to focus on one small aspect of Repulse. After yet another game where some enterprising Advent player pushed a couple of my capitals around for a few minutes until they managed to kill them, the really irritating thing that I noticed was that a ship loses all its

47 Replies 42,288 Views

Deceiver, this is a very good explanation. I've said the same thing before, but I never went into this kind of detail. This is why Illums destroy large groups of ships, especially with their fly-by tactics....they don't necessarily kill any 1 ship quickly, but when properly microed, they can wear down groups of ships much faster than ships relying on focus fire.

16 Replies 54,696 Views

[quote]In terms of EMP, that could be carried out more by a super-power state as a calculated move. Or as part of a first strike. In fact high altitude nukes for the express purpose of EMP's were one of the options the Soviets had in a direct nuclear war in order to sow as much confusion and disorganization as possible in order to "open the door" for their backfire bombers and other military assets to penetrate as far as possible before being intercepted. For example, if China deto

153 Replies 445,152 Views

[quote]No, but a lot of newer cars have integrated computers. Also, just about every car has a battery and some sort of electrical mechinisms that run off said battery. They might not be electrically based, but many do use electricity in some way. The real question is will the loss of those electrical systems compromise the car, or will it still be able to run, albeit with limited capabilities. IMO, we can't actually know the answer to that question without setti

153 Replies 445,152 Views

[quote]The first part, the part that only lasts a fraction of a second, is the one that fries electronics, and is very hard to protect against. It, as far as I can tell, does NOT require a larg curcuit to be effective.[/quote] Right, it doesn't need long circuits. It is caused by the intense electric field from the initial electrons being displaced by the gamma radiation. There is a very brief but very sharp voltage spike that damages fragile circuits under power.

153 Replies 445,152 Views

[quote]Which all modern cars do... so let me rephrase, it will knock out MY car and most RUNNING cars. Ancient cars will keep on running. (as I doubt it will be powerful enough to damage the spark plugs)[/quote] Yes, all modern cars do. I only meant they might get knocked out because a lot of cars are parked underground and a lot of cars are not being driven at any given moment. I've been doing a lot of reading, and I'm starting to fall in with the school of thought that e

153 Replies 445,152 Views

[quote]People, an EMP won't knock out your car. It won't knock out radios, computers, cellphones, laptops. It won't magically erase data storage and it certainly won't erase civilization from people's heads.[/quote] It won't knock out your car if it has a distributor cap and little or no reliance on computer chips. It might screw up your car if you have electronic ignition and computer controlled timing, but handy people will probably get a lot of these cars working, even if the

153 Replies 445,152 Views

[quote]Over a continent approximately 2500 miles wide and 1000 miles tall, for a total of 2.5x106 square miles - or less than 1 kw/h per square mile.[/quote] First, this is not 1 kw/h per square mile. It is a (KILOWATT * HOUR / SQUARE MILE). Except the energy is not being released in an hour, it is being released in MicroSeconds, which is a huge conversion factor. One of the numbers listed as being the time frame of the first change in electric field peaking is

153 Replies 445,152 Views

[quote]Really, I'd only use a Sova if the enemy was 1-3 jumps away... Any more than that, and it just seems a waste of a cap... As for the Akkan, I have never seen a real use for it. Sure, Ion bolt is cool, but nothing else on the ship is... The colonize for the TEC is worthless to a race with nearly unlimited credits, and targeting uplink doesn't provide enough of a boost to be worthwhile... Armistice is a mass ion cannon. It gives you time for your primary force to arrive, but even the

14 Replies 42,969 Views

OK, so I tried to find some different opinions on the threat of EMP. I tried to tailor my searches to find stuff stating EMP as being exaggerated or a hoax, but kept coming back with pages of search results discussing how bad EMP is and how vulnerable we are to its effects. Luckily, I'm unemployed atm, so I kept looking through all the doom and gloom articles. I managed to find a paper that states the danger of EMP is extremely over-exagerated. This is the only con

153 Replies 445,152 Views

[quote]Not to mention that the ability to produce food and such vital supplies would not just dissapear - as stated previously, EMP would not knock out relatively primitive machinery such as tractors or trucks and trains.[/quote] I agree with you, primitive machinery is not all going to get knocked out, or it is going to get rapidly restored by people who hotwire things to bypass the electronics. Unfortunately new high-end vehicles that are completely dependent on their onboard

153 Replies 445,152 Views

[quote]Not really. One relatively weak nuke (Hiroshima sized) could theorectially knock out the entire US, I question that. I'm gonna have to ask for backup of that claim.[/quote] Ok, first of all, I don't think it would be easy for a terrorist group to launch an EMP attack as hypothesized. Some time in the future the proliferation of advanced technology might make this kind of attack easier to pull off, but I'm not too worried about it at the moment.&n

153 Replies 445,152 Views

[quote]It's actually because makeing new transformers is time-consuming and there are very few places that make them. If I remember correctly, there's only 5 or so places that make them in the world. I saw something on the Discovery channel about what would happen in the event of a massive solar flare, but it was a while ago, so I could be wrong.[/quote] Yeah, I'm with you there, they are very hard to make, and they can't be fixed if destroyed in the way we are describing -- they have

153 Replies 445,152 Views

[quote]A terrorist group could maybe get their hands on the tech to launch one of these attacks (stolen from Russia, etc) but I think that is highly unlikely. IMO, the most likey way for such a situation to ever exist is a massive solar flare, but even that is unlikely (although possible) to knock out the entire infrustructure of a country irrepairably (unless its a really small country *cough* Luxembourg *cough*).[/quote] LOL !!! You beat me by 4 minutes!!!

153 Replies 445,152 Views