|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Ideas |
Tue, 06 April 2004 11:11   |
|
|
|
x% - is nice. and %defence might be good (not defences but % of population participate in defence, like ground soldiers). it can increse planets resistance in the ground battle. no?
we will never dieReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Ideas |
Tue, 06 April 2004 11:52 |
|
| Orca |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
| LEit wrote on Tue, 06 April 2004 10:01 |
Adding a research 'buildable' item might be a good idea, I'll be looking at production soon. Should it be x resources or x%?
|
I would say either x resources or x tech. "Build energy 6" or what have you...this of course would change the game however more than x resources (which you can effectively do now by carefully just building so many resources worth of stuff in the queue and leaving all the autobuild stuff out.)
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Ideas |
Tue, 06 April 2004 11:53 |
|
|
|
well, you right...
another moments i don't like in stars!...
1) a planet can build a starbase when an enemy fleets are on orbit... i think it's not good, starbases appearing every year on the planet i bombing... i think its must be a mechanism to resolve this situation... well, a peeping tom cant hold enemy starbase construction, but the big fleet with some battleships - can. imho.
2) transprting orders are not sufficient... i cant load all minerals in proportion 33%\33%\33% but leave at last 10kt of each on planet....
we will never dieReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Ideas |
Tue, 06 April 2004 12:38 |
|
| Orca |
| Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
| chaosknight wrote on Tue, 06 April 2004 11:53 |
1) a planet can build a starbase when an enemy fleets are on orbit... i think it's not good, starbases appearing every year on the planet i bombing... i think its must be a mechanism to resolve this situation... well, a peeping tom cant hold enemy starbase construction, but the big fleet with some battleships - can. imho.
|
Balance change. And being able to build a base while being bombed is important defensively. Not likely to change.
| chaosknight wrote on Tue, 06 April 2004 11:53 |
2) transprting orders are not sufficient... i cant load all minerals in proportion 33%\33%\33% but leave at last 10kt of each on planet....
|
This level of automation *could* concievably be handled client-side, though it would be a pain. It does complicate the already busy transport section, but would be useful. One thing that *is* going to change is the cargo limit, which is pretty much too low to be useful. I don't know about this though. LEit?
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Ideas |
Tue, 06 April 2004 12:56 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Balance change. And being able to build a base while being bombed is important defensively. Not likely to change.
|
well, i think - the 'siege' state of planet may be a good thing... but as u wish...
we will never dieReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Ideas |
Tue, 06 April 2004 15:59 |
|
 Strat |
 | Petty Officer 1st Class |
Messages: 62
Registered: March 2004 | |
|
| gible wrote on Mon, 18 August 2003 03:39 |
Combat scripts. 1/4 (or 6) type X ships goes after Bob's frighters, while avoiding the main combat. others to defend Jim's frighters. others to engage at will. frighters & bombers to flee.
|
I like this idea, or a tangent of it anyways.
Why cant we have in the battle plans, more specific targets than the ambigous "Armed Ships" classification? We have Kill Star Base don't we?
I do see this as a Stars! bug, if not at least an inconvenience, for the "Kill Starbase" is the death of the AR.
Why would it not be a good idea to expand on the "Armed Ships" option as a Primary or Secondary Target in the battle plans?
One alternative would be to classify ship designs based on thier Stars! ratings. You might might make three classifications; Light, Medium, and Heavy. This would allow battle plans to target specific warship classes. I do not know how Stars! scores ships, so I do not know how accurate this approach would be, but it is an idea.
This would change much of battle planing and ship design, for example it reduces the effectiveness of chaff. I have not had that much experience (I'm in my first online game currently) with chaff, so I have no idea how this would affect game play, muchless other aspects of FreeStars! battles.
But if you can chose to kill a starbase, a freighter, a bomber, a fuel transport, why not specific classes of warships? It also makes since becuase in the world of strategic planning, attacking specific targets is often very important, however, I have no idea yet how important such concepts are in Stars!.
My 
Strat
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Ideas |
Wed, 07 April 2004 08:16 |
|
|
|
| Ozone wrote on Wed, 07 April 2004 00:47 |
here are a few ideas that I think might improve game play:
1) Being able to task organize fleets
|
I *think* this is asking about an ability to assign tokens within a fleet different battle orders. For example, beamers having max damage orders while the missile token has max ratio orders, etc.
Opinion: I doubt you'll see it in v1. In the current game you simply have to split the fleet in order to do this.
- Kurt
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
). but it can reduce some nag messages in late-game when 'production quoe is empty' in 100 of yours planets.. you can make some scientific or defncive worlds...
