It's a great game, but I never could get any good at competitive multiplayer. As others have said above, it's too much of a click fest for me to enjoy when it gets too fast. Additionally, my roommate is somewhere between Greek legend and minor deity when it comes to Starcraft, so it got kind of depressing to be repeatedly raped.
So basically, the Iconians have all this crazy sh*t, except they can't improve it, because they honestly don't know what the f*ck they're doing? I like it. Though I probably wouldn't use it; it doesn't sound like a long-run strategy.
I was just thinking that the current combat viewer is very restrictive. The default overhead view is too far away from the action to make it impressive, and many a time when I switch to a close-up view I end up looking at the front end of one of my ships, beyond which is only empty space. The action is BEHIND me. Now, unless there is some secret to aiming the camera that I have not discovered due to a brilliant stroke of ignorance on my part, I would like to see a way to select a single ship,
[quote]Duh... correct this with between 6 and twelve directions. Ask any pilots, the 11'O is a direct reference to the top left corner in pseudo-hexagons divided in 12 equal angles of 35*.[/quote] Um, what? "Pseudo-hexagons"? How is something a hexagon, yet not really a hexagon?
[quote]Empire (aliment evil) Warlords ---> Cheifton ---> dictator ---> Lordship ----> Empireor ---> Supreme Imperator[/quote] These are all pretty much the same thing though: Imperialist. I agree that it would be cool to have more variation in the types of government though. It seems like government is little more than free candy in my games; I never have problems managing morale amongst the people, which are supposedly harder to control. The tree should branch out I thi
[quote]But what I'd immediately sign is a hexagonal grid of the galaxy, instead of the current square grid.[/quote] I was thinking that myself, but then I realized that with such a system your ships would only be able to go straight in 3 directions, instead of 4. Not that thats really a big deal, but I just think it might be strange. I would still give it a go though.
I liked the use of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture in [U]V for Vendetta[/U]. The end of [U]Fight Club[/U] (won't ruin it if you haven't seen it!). The scene in [U]Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King[/U] where Theodin gives his little pep talk before the Battle of the Pelennor Fields (yes, it deserves capitalization). Tom Hanks saying "I'll see you on the beach" in [U]Saving Private Ryan[/U] (not really sure why I like that so much). I just saw [U]American Hi
While the others arguably might beat The Empire in a war, Vader himself wouldn't actually die. The only thing that can kill Vader is Vader. He would eventually be forced (Haha, get it? nevermind) into personally hunting down Kane and Lord Kona. Assuming they knew where he was, they could just fly away from his location, but eventually they'd mess up, and Vader would choke a b**ch. But in any case, neither Kane (from what I've played, haven't seen the new one) nor Lord Kona can match the spee
[quote]2x1010 c[/quote] Did you mean 2020 c, or 2^1010 c, a number with an absurd amount of digits?
[quote]why can you not go back in time and kill your younger self.[/quote] Depends. If you go back and time and kill yourself, you never existed, and therefore couldn't kill yourself, in which case you are still alive...paradox. However, it is possible that you [I]can[/I] kill yourself, provided that the "past" you visit isn't actually connected with your present, like visiting a parallel universe that is identical to a previous state or your native universe. Arguably, though
[quote]Wow, thats amazingly similar to how i thought/felt about god as a child...interesting.[/quote] Can of worms; don't open it.
[quote]though to ignite thermite you need a magnesium strip, which is a taller order[/quote] Either you aren't aware that magnesium is commonly available in camping stores, or I am unaware that there is an easily accessible way to obtain thermite ingredients. If the latter, PLEASE INFORM (particularly iron oxide). [quote]so therefore it should also decrease with less speed right?[/quote] Building on that: moveme
If something travels at light speed, they experience no time change relative to slower objects, correct? Perhaps you could consider c to be equivalent to a "time speed" of zero, and other, less energetic things have a higher "time speed". From this perspective, there's nothing special about c. Doesn't really answer the question though.
[quote]why light is exactly the speed of 'c'?[/quote] Because we said so. We created meters and seconds before we discovered light speed, and we defined light speed in the terms we knew. But it's not like light speed "is" c, we could easily put it in terms other than meters/seconds. This is the only way we are capable of describing such things. [quote]Our universe... its a fake![/quote] There's actually an interesting theory, based in statistics, that our un
That would be, quite simply, insane (in a bad way). Besides, galaxies are relatively flat, are they not? They would only be about 1-3 units "deep" if you did 3-d, so why bother?
[quote]9 trillion actually[/quote] Whoops, thinking of the wrong number; $9 trillion sounds a lot better than $50 trillion.
Hey, American debt is what, $50 trillion? We're still operational (more or less). Perhaps the debt cap should be 50,000 bc?
[quote]if space isn't a vacuum, then please explain what is there.[/quote] Space isn't a "perfect" vacuum. In our solar system, all the gas has coalesced into the planets, their moons, or the Sun itself. However, beyond a certain distance (don't know exactly what the distance is), the pull of the Sun's gravity isn't strong enough to attract the gas, so there is in fact a cloud of gas known as the interstellar medium (which we have referred to frequently in this thread), which is theor
[quote]Well you use the fuel atoms of course, thats why it is called 'fuel'. [/quote] But that would be redundant. Carrying extra "fuel" atoms would only slow the ship down, because of the extra mass that needs to be accelerated, countering any increase in thrust applied.
[quote]and it seems that a lot of money is being put towards keeping energy woes and global warming from being solved[/quote] That's because there is a lot of money at stake here. It cuts drastically on energy companies' profits to make a full blown switch to "green" energy, and this will undoubtedly get redistributed to other companies and eventually private consumers, a.k.a. [B]US[/B]. Look at gas, for instance. We all use gas to commute, but do you realize that not only are you pa
[quote]Oh well, just figure out how to convert the extra mass into energy for the rocket![/quote] It's not that simple. I suppose it's more accurate to say the ship gets [I]denser[/I]. Essentially, each atom is getting heavier, not because it is accumulating more atoms, but the particles themselves are just...heavier than before. So converting "extra" mass into energy would be to digest the ship itself, which is obviously not a good idea.
[quote]so if you have enough fuel, eventually you can go faster than light?[/quote] Ah you bring up a good point. Relativity says that as velocity of a vessel approaches light speed, the mass of the vessel increase proportionately (that's the theory in a nutshell, anyways). So an engine that produces a constant force will eventually produce negligible acceleration due to this increase in mass (F=ma, therefore F/m=a; if F is constant and m continually increases, F/m approaches zero).
Well, even in space there is some resistance (interstellar medium ring a bell?), but for the most part, yes, our fuel is the limit. There is also the issue of G's a human can safely undergo, but I'm not sure if that has really been a limiting factor yet ("G" is a measure of acceleration; 1 G is equal to the acceleration caused by gravity, 9.81 meters per second or 32.174 feet per second, so if you experience 2 G's, you would feel twice as heavy, etc).
[quote]if you take your engine to full speed.[/quote] Engines don't have a full speed. Engines provide acceleration (which may be adjustable by changing some part of the engine), but any positive acceleration will always increase the speed of its vessel over time. It is only in the presence of a medium (such as air) that engines will have a "top speed"; this is because as the vessel increases speed, the resistance of said medium also increases, which provides a negative acceleration t
[quote]Hello! has anyone here figured out the meaning of life yet?[/quote] "I know not the destination; I can only walk the path" [quote]anyone thought about direct mass-energy generation?[/quote] It would be extremely inefficient. The energy input to isolate, control, and destroy matter would be colossal, and then you have to consider the apparatus that is doing this, particularly if said device is used for propulsion; such a large device would require huge amounts o
