Mettra

[quote]Note to self: reduced use of subtlety in my humor is a must.[/quote] That whole exchange was hilarious, if I might say.

[quote]Sorry for double post but this guy captures exactly why the super weapons and RA exist.[/quote] I don't see any threads about people rushing to Novaliths in multiplayer. That is to say, it isn't nearly as good as RA. So while the point about superweapons is correct, it doesn't hold up well when one 'superweapon' is significantly better than all the others (to say the least). Go ahead and pit an RA rusher vs. a Novalith rusher and see what happens to see what I mean.

[quote]A Jarrasul Evacuator does 1,500 damage or more with its Drain Planet ability. This also gives you credits and does the damage faster than Raze Planet. While it takes a long time to recharge, it still has far more bonuses than Raze Planet. It's not just a little better, it's a lot better. Keep in mind that the mentioned ability is for a colony capital. (1) Not only does the Kol have weapons pointing in pretty much every direction, making it much harder, target priority comes into

[quote]A planet has at least 1,500. Considering how long it actually takes to apply the damage, especially taking in the fact that it's doubtful that someone will leave their planet that vulnerable, it's not quite so useful. (1) That's the problem; hitting them at low shield mitigation. The ship's guns typically put it at a high mitigation before it can fire off the railgun, dropping its usefulness by quite a bit. While it's grand when coupled with Finest Hour, it's not so grand without

[quote]I just don't see the joy in playing against an AI when you can play against real people.[/quote] I guess you don't see the joy in reading a book about a murder mystery instead of joining the local police either. 'Single player' is not equivalent to 'single player campaign.' Campaigns can be enjoyable for the story, the characters, and the interaction between the two and the player. Also you have to consider that not all people want competition when they play. They wan

My only complaint about replays is that I can't see what's actually being built in factories until it pops out.

[quote]Am I the only RTS player on Earth that regards linear, "story based" lead-you-by-the-nose campaigns in RTS games as boring, pointless, and unplayable? (1) Strategy games simply aren't good story telling devices IMO. (2)[/quote] (1) I would have disagreed with you 100 times over had I not played through the Battle for Middle Earth II campaign. Just thinking about it makes me want to hurl. Playing the 'sandbox' mode is tons of fun usually, but the single player campaign

Interesting book there, seemingly. I might have to go to the library soon. Incidentally, I think the discrepancy between my very rough 'guessticalculation' and his is that he specifically mentions the surface of the sun (that is, a certain [large] distance away from the center of gravity) whereas I was simply talking about all the gravitational field strength concentrated at a very small volume (so that it can be plopped in front of a ship) :).

[quote]Actually just think of it as a SLIGHT bending of space - not enough to be noticeable to the naked eye, but enough to disrupt and dramatically weaken an energy-based weapon. A laser could go from a fine concentrated point to a broader foot-diameter 'blast' that will have dramatically less effect. This doesn't explain ballistic protection, but it works for energy weapons.[/quote] If you somehow figure out a way to bend space like this (without, for example, plopping a plan

[quote] Gauss cannons are in reality electromagnetic guns that blast particles at high velocities. (1) I'm hoping the usage of Gauss in this game is a mistake, as any form of electro magnetism would disable devices and destroy. (2) A gauss gun or any type of Gauss weapon/railgun should NOT be blocked by any form of technology, it should be able to disable technology. (3) A coilgun or Gauss gun is a type of projectile accelerator that uses one or more electroma

[quote]As much as I love fwoophuggle, that wasn't my meaning. It's the e-peen stroking shat that I hate.[/quote] Ah yes, I misread 'unit' ;). It is unfortunate that any large enough gathering of humans will result in the eternal alpha-male (and female) struggle. However, numbers are not to blame :). This thread, by the way, is actually quite tame compared to a few others...

[quote]I have to totally agree with Rickder19 here. Not only do units but everything else stinks of WC3. I mean just look at the mouse controls - you click to select units and you click and drag to select multiple ones - where does Sins get off so blatantly ripping off Warcraft?! And don't even get me started on keyboard shortrcuts - F10 to call up the main menu - that's exactly the same as in every warcraft game! I understand copying a feature or two, I mean if something's done right then it'd

[quote]Said a million times, i say it again. These direct unit vs unit tests are useless. Many other factors play part in the outcome of a battle.[/quote] Yes, but these unit vs. unit tests give us a good idea of what to expect performance-wise from each ship compared to each other ship. Empirical data on an easy experiment is the basis for a lot of knowledge. Physics didn't start out with a Grand Unified Theory. When people do tests like these, they are trying to see patterns to, ov

[quote]That sounds like just a function of what game speed you have it on, you could always lower the game speed until you're hardly pressured at all.[/quote] You'll have to forgive me here, my multiplayer is showing. I hadn't considered playing the game on a slow setting. In fact, the 'standard' speed in that game (in multiplayer) was the fastest speed, just as in Starcraft. It's a sort of convention that the RTS world has adopted in order to have ready-to-order games. Howe

[quote]The very first thing I noticed about Sins was that the combat reminded me of Warcraft. (1) It's the twin necessities of creating a balanced fleet (army) and then making sure that army is kept together whilst moving about the map, which are the two core principles of Warcraft III. (2) It's based upon the idea of individual units being too weak to make any real impact, and therefore making it pointless to send scattered units around to make attacks. (3) Hell, Sins

Depending on your situation, I'd say it's usually better to build one on separate planets. The reason is that culture drops off a set amount with each phase 'jump' so spreading the culture buildings to other planets will give a higher overal culture strength.

Just curious, but is there some particular reason this is in the strategy section? And on the topic of whether or not this is the 'first' RT4X game - is RoN even a good example? To be honest, AoEIII felt more like a 4X game than RoN. RoN was a straight-up tech-spam-click wizardry-style RTS. The furious pace of it doesn't let it come even close to being 4Xish at all. To see where I'm coming from, imagine playing GalCiv II with turns being every 6 seconds. Sure it might meet some m

[quote]I have a question Kruelgor and everybody else, why haven't I see any tests between fleets with mixed units?? (1) And also, why so many stats, numbers and "if". In this sort of discussion a replay would be a lot more useful to identify what really happens during the battle. (2)[/quote] (1) It's easiest to see patterns with the simplest cases. Also, in a case such as 40 Cobs vs. 10 Illums, 10 Carriers, the outcome will depend on the situation and not just the math (for ex

Basically to sum up some of the confusion often centered around these discussions: They have interesting theoretical advantages (very high speed/acceleration; raid mobility; spike damage; building assassination), but they currently have practical disadvantages (flaks, carrier speed/fragility etc.) - so much so that they don't really serve ANY major function without a high chance of failure. Hopefully the strikecraft/flak balance can be shifted or changed somehow in the next few

[quote]Anyways when you're saying Illum is being BUFFED the big problem is that you're comparing it to the 1.03 illum, not the 1.02 one. (1) Why not 1.02 Illum with front beam doing 70% of it's damage? Why, why, why? Because it's easier to make all the ships carbon copies with slight differences? (2) Would it kill game balance if capital ships did 25% more damage to light and medium armor? I sure don't think so. CAPITAL damage could of just gotten a buffy vs LIGHT and MEDIU

Colony caps have a lower top speed than other caps. Also in a smaller map, like 1v1, if you build a colony cap and your opponent builds a battleship, you'll eventually either have to face up and lose your cap or retreat and not be able to use your cap. Especially if you are against Vasari (since you will have no energy for your special abilities).

[quote]At least, imho I agree that MBS needs to be used carefully. Personally, I'd support the side that's against making macro too easy. Just being able to dig my hands into the big picture makes the game fun. (1) But what makes SoaSE different, imo, is that it's HUGE, and even with simplifying macro, and even micro, there is plenty to get my hands into to keep busy. (2) [/quote] (1) Just thought I'd follow up a bit on my earlier comments. It's not that WCIII isn't balanc

I'd have to agree about the font - that is, smaller sections of text are easier to read with slightly larger fonts (the fonts here on this board are rather small, actually...). Focus firing is selecting many or all of your ships and attacking a single target (or only a few single targets). Focus firing makes faster kills and therefore removes more enemy damage faster giving you an advantage.

[quote]I'm not going to clutter up this thread with a bunch of mathematical analysis, which I already pointed out to innociv and he's conveniently ignoring. (1) Finally, the illuminator buff (yes BUFF) is much needed and appreciated. (2) The biggest gameplay change will be that LRM type ships cannot "move attack" the capital ships in a manner guarenteeing their death. (3)[/quote] (1) I (personally, anyway) agree with your points, but I think innociv's concerns are val

You can choose to lock the teams in the game options and then specify which team each AI belongs to. You can have them in groups or all on a different team. With teams locked, there is no diplomacy, so they will always be against each other (sans reloading bugs).