[quote] YES, it would be really cool, but not practical. [/quote] [X] Disable Animations Problem solved for computers that can't handle it. Seriously though, this would be real
Tsed
Personally, one franchise strikes me as a perfect fit -- Freespace. 3 races, plenty of ship variety, and... well... lots of beam action
Honestly, I'd prefer if other methods of picking up the pace is used -- I'm a bit opposed to choose-able speed in game. DEFCON did something exactly like you're proposing. The game would run at the slowest speed players 'voted' on. Unfortunately, you then end up with a ton of "SPEED IT UP" "C'MON FASTER" chat-spamming. :/ Now, as a game creation option (ala StarCraft), I'm fine with it -- you know what speed of a game you're getting into. Variable speed inevitably pisses *s
Right, according to vista my page file is at 2345mb (auto manage) min: 16mb max: 3067mb Hope this helps? Even for vista, a page file of 2345 MB's is overkill. As in you have a lot of junk running in the background, try running in a clean boot. (Unless that means that its allocated that amount, but isn't using it... I don't know enough abou
stars do go big and blue (and green) usually right before they're about to go supernova (in the next ten or so thousand years) They go big and *red* at that point (with a timeline dependent on size). Blue is generally an indicator of a young, hot star.
Now look at this bad boy. This is what I want to see in the middle of the system... also why do i get green stars? you cant have green, think white, orange to deep red. no other colours please Actually, it's entirely reasonable to call our sun a 'green' star. Blue is also a 'natural' color, fyi.
sorry a planet orbits a star. a moon orbits a planet. Yep, exactly. The only reason moon-like objects couldn't be in orbit of a star is because then, by *definition*, they wouldn't be moons. it niether g
which are a far greater distance than the immediate gravity well, you just supported what I said thank you. Newp -- your assertion was that "either way stars do not have moons", not "either way stars do not have moons very close to them". Even ignoring the asteroid belt/s and various KBOs/etc, Mercury is still smaller than some moons (though still more massive) in the solar system. It is *moon-sized* and exists. An object sma
either way stars do not have moons, it has to do with their corona and massive gravitational and electromagnetic flucuations. their only "moons" are planets. ...huh? You're right -- stars don't have moons. It has nothing to do with 'gravitational and
I believe it supports whatever your monitor/videocard combination support. 1760x1020 is certainly not the highest (I'm running 1920x1200, myself).
Not many habitable worlds would be covered in magma either. But it's pretty!
Just curious if this is a bug or not -- I *never* see planetary rings in game. I see them before a game is started (when creating a game and whatnot), but never in actual play.
This sounds more like the Gauss turrets should be able to rotate it's turrets, as opposed to being fixed to fire along the X/Y axis only. I'm pretty sure they already can? I'm pretty positive I've seen 'em firing off-plane. All I'm seeing in "examples" so far from various posters above, is a request for unnecessary amounts of complexity that would serve for nothing else then to bog down the pace of Mult
I think the main problem is that it really doesn't add as much tactical depth as some people claim it does (up or down, you still can't get any further away from the planet than you would on a 2d plane since it's a spherical arena), so it really isn't worth the added complexity. Fair enough -- know if the modding tools/kits will expose the AI enough to make such changes to the AI feasible (if difficult)?
As it stands, the AI will react to you using the z-axis, but it won't actively use it on it's own. Even just using it a bit makes battles much more interesting, so I'm curious if the current plan is largely sticking to planar movement, or giving the AI some competence when it comes to the Z-axis.
Seriously, late game I'm pretty much drowning in resources with nowhere to put 'em. Last medium game I finished with ~150 refinery ships floating around, and a similar number of trade ships. Bit of overkill, but hey.
let me reclarify; they aren't exactly "seperate", but there is a limit on how many cap ships you do. I really detest that system -- what happens when I'm the head of a 10,000 planet empire? Even if I simply linearly scale a reasonable number of capships up to match my new empire's size, I run into that limit long before I reach my usage of ship points. I thin
And I've been playing with a Sova... so far it's a bit fragile, but working pretty well microed.
Umm... Am I the only person with a nagging suspicion that rapid-colonizing Akkan would be IMBA as hell? Maybe right now, but that seems pretty tweakable balance-wise, to me.
I'm sorry, but a ship jumping out when its taking heavy damage is just the enemy ship being smart. Sure, it sucks have a ship jump away with just 1 or 2 HP left (and I've had that happen to me...), but you can do it to the enemy, too. And if it REALLY upsets you, just have your vessels follow it to the other end of the jump point <img id="ImageResize_Image_2" onload="ImageResizer.createOn(this);" src="http://images.stardock.com/gc2/T_DL/sm
Yarlen: Excellent hexenjag: Eh, not much a fan -- that'd slow down the early game *considerably*. The capship is the pirate-breaker, and having to wait for research could be rough.
Currently, all the capships we've seen are (theoretically) all equally valuable. While I know some people want to change that, I think keeping them flat-priced has some advantages. For example, might it be possible (particularly in MP) to choose which class you want as your capital ship? Might add a bit of variety, particularly to the early game... (do I go for the firepower of the Kol, the early colonizing of the Akkan, etc).
While I certainly don't mind the current Cruiser situation, this is also reasonable: Take cruisers double their supply and production cost. Give them some more armor and shielding and give them a boost in weaponry, especially the Kodiak and the Command Cruiser (For the Command Cruiser add a few autocannon turrets, the TEC need some more kinetic love. Or whatever). Just a bump for the Robotics Cruiser. And an extra squadron or two for the Carrier but only
I thought battle3 was kind was weird, probably because of the breathing thing. So far battle 4 sounds awesome though. Weird, but battle 3 is actually my fave of the 'battle' series, simply because it's very unique. And hey, looking through the Sound dir, we hear what the advisors for the other 2 races sound like.
You can't be sure! possibly some sort of enhancement could boost the power output to 110%. A photon accelerator? Who knows! I can. If you can get 110% efficiency, you hardly need those solar panels. You're creating energy out of nothing