I think I understand what he's asking for. [I think] He simply wants a jewelry piece that makes the ship (when viewed from the Intelligence Report, for example) read as having more people on it. The numbers listed for "crew" there are pretty arbitrary, I must admit.
IHTFP * 2 I Have To F*ing Play I Have To F*ing Purchase Oh, wait, I already did... well, come on, this applies to the others, too.
[quote]It won't slow by much, considering the huge difference in mass between an electromagnetically-launched projectile and the host ship. Especially if the ship is large. An A-10 ground-attack jet pilot does feel some recoil in flight when that huge 30mm cannon is fired, but it doesn't exactly stop in mid air.[/quote] Once again not taking into consideration the vast differences in near- or super-light speeds and bullet speeds. And the difference between ship-disabling/destroying warh
Can't think of it like "lose speed" here. You have to acknowledge that it's "accelerating in another direction." If the missile shoots straight ahead, the two will be the same. Otherwise the ship's course will change.
The Fighter Jet to Spacecraft comparison doesn't work because we're comparing roughly the speed of sound (for the missile, maybe Mach 4) with near (or, in fun situations, over) Lightspeed. The amount of energy required for these speeds is so close to (or is actually) impossible to produce it's not even funny. To use a railgun-accelerated missile may make sense, but F=MA. The amount you want to accelerate this missile is going to make a huge force regardless of the mass, and it's going to scr
Also, making a small missile capable of more than the speeds we're assuming ships would be travelling in combat is entirely ineffective. The missile would be so massive that a ship could only carry two or three shots. Reasoning: Missile is better because ships travel too fast, therefore distances are too far for optical or other electromagnetic targeting ship-to-ship. Ships travel too fast means they're still travelling basically at cruising speeds. Missile now has to travel faster than
If you colonize a planet, get a bonus, then it changes hands, does it retain that bonus?
[quote] ...nothing like real space combat...[/quote] Two things: one, we don't have such a thing yet, so it's hard to say that. Two (and I suppose more, as this is getting long now that I'm typing it), When it comes to space weaponry, the size of missiles and mass drivers would be constrictive. Beam weapons could (with theoretical reactors) theoretically produce a larger bang for much less mass, allowing the ship to keep more for movement. Plus, beams travel at lightspeed and mi
[quote] tying up the fleets reduces the Blitzkrieg//Sneak Attack thing that Stardock doesn't like that much--only a player who has a vast advantage in numbers could pull it off so effectively if the fleets have to stay near the planets for a few turns to ensure victory. Sorry, what do you mean by that? [/quote] Fleet A (Player 1) is taking over Planet Q (Player 2). Takeover lasts... 3 weeks, let's say
Couple of things. First, about the liquid H2O rather than gaseous H2O, when hydrogen is used in a fuel cell, the H2O is [I]created[/I] on the spot. Therefore, it is pure. Furthermore, no other byproducts are created by the fuel cell. If you're going to say that the brand-spanking-new H2O molecules are poisonous because of a short-time exposure to air, why the hell can I drink water that's been around for years, after it's been sitting in an open container for days, without getting sick?
Another thing is that tying up the fleets reduces the Blitzkrieg//Sneak Attack thing that Stardock doesn't like that much--only a player who has a vast advantage in numbers could pull it off so effectively if the fleets have to stay near the planets for a few turns to ensure victory.
Besides that, the majority of customers Blizzard wants are the ones who will keep playing the game. If people buy the game just because it's pretty, they don't get advertising cash through Battle.Net because the gameplay (see Stardock's argument against multiplayer, though slightly less major because of the size of Blizzard) begins to suffer. And if the game lags, people don't play MP.
Starcraft is chess on the computer, in a non-turn-based fashion, where my knights look like tanks some of the time and stationary artillery other times, and your knights look like giant worms that shoot fists.
[quote] ...I'm peaceful and prospering... [/quote] I dunno about [I]prospering[/I], what with the Depression and all.
I still say I like something brought up in Reply 2. It isn't making invasions mini-gamey if the extended invasion can benefit by backup troops being sent in. I have no interest in controlling the ground battle, but there's no reason that my logistics capabilities should make a difference in the number of transports that can orbit the planet being invaded. Each planet has a maximum number of ships for orbit to begin with. Taking multiple turns adds the ability for the AI to move
I don't think a rewrite from scratch is necessary. Just like the AI currently does pretty darn well with completely different tech trees--it looks at numbers, then crunches other numbers, and decides what to do. Just throw in a couple of other number crunches and numbers that it looks at, and it's done. Not to say that's EASY, but it's not rewriting from scratch.
Replying via PM to keep the thread clean.
I really do like Starcraft, but people have to stop overstating its variety. There are two strategies: Rush/Be Rushed or Survive the Rush and Turtle. If you choose the latter, then, yes, after the rush, there is variety to be had. Otherwise, no, there really isn't that much variety. Especially (but not only) if you play online. The game was made in 1998 and the AI was/is very good. Unfortunately, the AI has no limits put on it--it can click things faster than the player can, an
[quote]For planets without starports, that simply means they can't BUILD ships, not that they can't offer logistical support to them. For underdeveloped planets, smaller ships could simply land to reprovision, and presumably larger ships would have shuttles or cargo lighters or something. For a current comparison, not every port has shipyards, but that doesn't mean they can't run a cargo terminal <img id="ImageResize_Image_2" onload="ImageResizer.createOn(this);" src="smiles/Ew.gif" align=
Besides, as long as you're quiet about it, it's fun to go to other places and criticize the way they're run.
I agree. Modders are usually capable of editing anything they need. If they add a new hull type, they can easily make sure they update all the appropriate tags. For the added capabilities in variety, it would be more than well worth the extra work.
The other thing is customer loyalty. We're kind of like dogs, you see. We went from game company to game company (home to home), mistreated in every one. We've finally found one that treats us well, so, were they to tell us "You need to jump off this bridge," we'd think, well, yeah, these guys have been nice to us, so I bet that's a good idea. In other words, we're willing to take risks (or make sacrifices) because Stardock has proven to us in the past that they can make more than good
I would also love that. One of the things the Star Wars mod could benefit is a starfighter-only maneuverability defense against capital ship weapons.
Until "cosmetic weapons" come in, my mod (Ultimate Design Freedom Mod) makes all components invisible (unless you use the non-MV compat version, where the colony and troop transport modules won't work), therefore allowing your masterpiece to still look cool, even though the laser colors may not be right.
When you say "all you'd need" here you make it sound like that seems like something the devs could put in relatively easily. If that's really the case, it makes me happy. Very happy.
