Fighters/Drones, Command modules and carriers

By on October 25, 2013 6:15:38 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Marauder_IIc

Join Date 08/2009
+1

As there is definitely some interest in diversioty in ships, which has lead to the tactical arguement as well as some starbase changes.

One thing I was thinking was fighter craft, be it piloted or drones.  Interceptors, fleet defense, patrol bombers etc.  That adds some more options and ideas in combat.  Its not just your giant ship versus mine trading blows, but with the fighters idea it can open the door to a LOT of diversity.  And while I am also a Wingcommander fan and a backer for Star Citizen I am in NO WAY SUGEGSTING that these ships are character pilotable.  More just squadron level commands, like which enemy to attach which friendly to defend.  This also make sense for Starbase defenses as well.

Any thoughts on this?

Locked Post 83 Replies +1
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 26, 2013 3:20:43 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

From what I have gathered it comes down to what fighters add to the game (without unnecessarily increasing complexity both development and resourcewise). Do we include fighters because you want to circumvent fleet cap? Does having 100 fighters with 1 of each weapon and no defense increase the play-ability of the game?

You cite diversity but what is the net gain in said diversity? Both for the player and for the developer? 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 26, 2013 6:29:11 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

but with the fighters idea it can open the door to a LOT of diversity

Another Carrier thread (without Carriers these "Fighters" are useless).... want a fighter - use ship builder to make one, along with its inevitable tactical resource limiting effects built into the ship builder, let alone its very limited ability to travel from System to System.

GalCiv is a Strategic level game, and Brad has stated zillions of times, Carriers are not happening - its the thin end of a massive Tactical wedge.

Plenty of Games where the existence of zillions of blobs on the screen zipping around giving the illusion of Tactical Warfare and "JoeTheOne" piloting his way to save The Universe looking steely-eyed through the Perspex as another Inter-Stellar Battleship falls victim to his heroic skills.

GalCiv is not one of them, and never will be.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 26, 2013 8:31:47 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Zydor,
GalCiv is a Strategic level game

If Stardock announces tactical combat of any kind, I'm going to be watching your reaction.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 26, 2013 9:42:20 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Wintersong,
If Stardock announces tactical combat of any kind, I'm going to be watching your reaction.

You will not be able to - I'll be gone.

An action that is not going to bring Stardock to its knees - only the Naïve believe that. If they turn it into a Tactical War, that's cool, its their game - it just will not be for me. If its a Combat Box that turns on or off depending on preferences - that's fine. If its mainstream combat integrated into the Main Game affecting results not pre-determined by the AI, that's not fine.

Enjoy if the latter turns up

I'll then go search (or wait) for a genuine Strategic Level game from somewhere. If it doesn't turn up, I'll turn up the wick on Chess - it will not be the end of life as we know it . Its only a game .....

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 26, 2013 2:51:09 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Zydor,
If they turn it into a Tactical War, that's cool, its their game - it just will not be for me.

Zydor, I don't think you need worry about it. Brad has stated many times over the last two decades that GC will always be, first and foremost, a strategy game, not a tactical one, and that is what has attracted so many of us to GC. I have not yet seen anyone asking that GC become strictly a tactical game. If anyone did, the entire GC3 forum would EXPLODE with posts dumping on the poor misinformed oaf.

Also consider that GC2 added the "battle viewer" feature as an option. The preponderant viewpoint of those asking for tactical combat as a new feature, from what I have seen so far in this forum, is that of adding it as an optional "feature within the main feature".

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 26, 2013 3:49:28 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Lucky Jack,
Zydor, I don't think you need worry about it.

Oh.... I'm not worried. ....

Brad has many attributes, insanity is not one of them.

GalCiv will turn into a "shoot-em-up" tactical game only if hell freezes over - even then he'll stall ....

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 27, 2013 3:32:21 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

I'd really like to count which is more often: posts about a carrier/fighter element or posts including "it's not a shoot-them-up" and "hell freezes over first" from zydor? It really gets exhausting...

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 27, 2013 4:25:38 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Strategy without tactics? That is like saying cake without icing or Hockey without a puck or Michael Jackson without music or a world without evil. Without tactics, do you really want a game where you don't have to think and whoever blows apart the bigger ship. With logic like that GC is doomed, DOOMED TO NEVER SUCCEED IN STRATEGY, EVER. I don't care what you say or think, the truth is that tactics was in GC II and you know it.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 27, 2013 5:06:31 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting yarodin,
I'd really like to count which is more often: posts about a carrier/fighter element or posts including "it's not a shoot-them-up" and "hell freezes over first" from zydor? It really gets exhausting...

 

Fighter/carriers, by a fair margin. Zydor only posts that in response to carrier posts and he's bound to miss a few.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 27, 2013 5:30:54 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Zydor,
You will not be able to - I'll be gone.

If tactical combat is in the game (I'm don't really care one way or the other but the fact is that none of us knows WTF is going to be in the game at all) and you actually do that, at least you will be coherent with yourself. I can respect that.

Quoting Zydor,
An action that is not going to bring Stardock to its knees - only the Naïve believe that. If they turn it into a Tactical War, that's cool, its their game - it just will not be for me. If its a Combat Box that turns on or off depending on preferences - that's fine. If its mainstream combat integrated into the Main Game affecting results not pre-determined by the AI, that's not fine.

Enjoy if the latter turns up

I'll then go search (or wait) for a genuine Strategic Level game from somewhere. If it doesn't turn up, I'll turn up the wick on Chess - it will not be the end of life as we know it . Its only a game .....

Master of Orion II is one of the classics of strategy and it has tactical combat. You can disable it before you start a game but the option is there. But if you just dislike any game that includes tactical combat no matter how it's actually implemented... to each his own.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 27, 2013 6:29:16 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Zydor, I really think rants for or against an idea are poor form. Please permit us to put forward our ideas as well.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 27, 2013 8:28:08 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

One of the reasons fighters are so popular in this genre, let's face it, is because of the source material, i.e. TV/Movies.

Star Wars has fighters.  Battlestar Galactica has fighters.  Space: Above and Beyond was pretty much all fighters as I remember.  Buck Rogers, Babylon 5... I can continue...

While Modders make up a small part of the GalCiv community, I'm sure they would LOVE to see a fighter implementation, if only to make their own mods more 'true' to the source material.

 

I elaborated on this in another thread, but if fighters WERE to be introduced into GalCivIII, they would really have to have some useful function, not just be another weapons platform - Gal Civ has plenty of those.

As I noted, perhaps fighters increase a ship's sensor range/can be sent on long range probes in some direction.

Perhaps fighters can perform long range strikes.

Perhaps fighters can augment ground assaults.

Fighters of course, probably shouldn't count against logistics, unless they are very powerful.  I like the idea of less powerful fighters myself, so they don't overshadow the ships.

 

Unless they are performing some unique functions that ships aren't already, it might not be worth the expendure of coding effort to implement fighters.  But if unique roles can be implemented for them, they make sense to me.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 27, 2013 8:56:28 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Carriers or carrier modules would fit nicely into the strategic flavor of GalCiv.  As long as you don't have to control each one during the fight, I think it would be a good addition.  

Using them sparingly and at the right time would probably be the key to successful deployment. I can't see their value late game, but they'd work mid game in some circumstances.  

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 27, 2013 9:11:23 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

I'm totally for this idea. Until specifics on combat are talked about some though I'm really not sure what would be an optimal way to implement them. But yes I'm all for carriers.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 27, 2013 10:43:25 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

OK, first off

@Zydor

First off, why are you in here trying to pick a fight with me?  I asked a question, I did not come in the room push you and make statements trying to get you to swing at me, please stop behaving like I did.  You obviosuly did NOT read my entire post as I did NOT want anything about one fighterjock kicking@$$ and taking name out here, infact I stated, in caps, much the opposite.  If you don't like my idea, that is fine, do not take it as some kind of personal offense that you need to attack at.  It's uncalled for.

 

@TJAshen

You statement makes sense, however that is not why/where, at least for me (not speaking for ANYONE else here) but more because I have always had an interest in reading about various wars as well as watched many documentaries, and frankly WW2 had a lot of changes due to carrier bound aircraft, and that was the direction I was thinking in, as the carrier fleets both in the Pacific and the Atlantic were both strategic assets, not strictly tactical. 

Your statement "Fighters of course, probably shouldn't count against logistics, unless they are very powerful.  I like the idea of less powerful fighters myself, so they don't overshadow the ships.

Unless they are performing some unique functions that ships aren't already, it might not be worth the expendure of coding effort to implement fighters.  But if unique roles can be implemented for them, they make sense to me."  I am in 100% agreement with this, this is the direction I was going for.  Treat it like a different weapon system/systems, more from a drone perspective, not a carrier scrambling Maverick, Iceman and Jester to solve a problem, as that would not fit AT ALL.  But where you were going in your post was what I was thinking about.

 

@LuckyJack

THANKS!  That's all I want, exchange of ideas, im not saying anyone else is wrong for a differnet thought, but, I expect to not be ranted at for having a thought different than someone elses.  Your comment is appreciated 

 

@Aeraellien

I wasn't meaning for it to circumvent anything.  I am approaching ship building and deployment from the perspective of one possible evolution from a modern Navy and how that logic and design could extend outwards in the future.  

I know some in this forum feel that people who like tactical options are there mainly for exploiting an AI, and unfortunatley there definitely are some like that, I am not one, just thinking of ways to make the ship building more meaningfull and something beyond the basic RPS idea that there is now.  Perhaps this is just my luck, however, after playing GC2 for years, and becoming pretty descent, I found my best build was always heavy shields and mass driver type weapons, as no AI ever acocunted for those, again perhaps some random oddball luck, but they went with shield and my Blackhole Guns went through them like paper.  So aside from a bit more diversity there, I was thinking in other directions to add into the necessity of good ship/fleet planning other than "Gunboating" (I know not usually used for this genre but it make sense) as late game, once i had my fleet production working well, I saw no reason to ever make anything smaller than the top 2  chassis sizes and load them up with mass drivers and shields, just trying to think of a different approach, something to add somehting different to build against.  Granted, it would need to be able to be well used by the AI otherwise it would be a trump against the AI which is NOT MY GOAL.

Hopefully this was received as intended not as me trying to destroy their beloved STRATEGY ONLY game, which is simply not the case.

 

**edit**

edited for typo

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 27, 2013 10:49:26 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Fanboys cant seem to live without there space-fighters can they? Well, GalcivII got by just fine without them and so will GalcivIII. 'Spacecraft' carriers serve no purpose. Tiny one man fighters don't make any sense tactically or strategically. No space-faring empre would invest in them. Too much expense and complexity for way too little bang. 

 

Single pilot fighters belong on the small and big screen. Enjoy them there-they serve no purpose in 4x games like Galciv series. 

 

Besides, the game even GAVE all you raving fighter-fanboys what your asking for. Tiny and S-class hulls. If you want 'fighters' do what I did.

 

I used the s-class hull and turned those into 'fighters' Now 'fighter' is a bit of a misnomer of course, since these fighters had crews of 6 and were small starships in there own right, but compared to the other craft they were stacked against, one could call them fighters if that makes you happy.

 

This whole issue is a stupid as it is pointless. Fighters only make sense in a atmosphere. Out in space, they are just under-powered, under-weaponed RPVs that happen to have a heroic steely jawed pilot with all the right stuff(and a pile of life support for him) instead of something actually useful like a larger weapons payload and a simple computer to tell it where to fly. IE-a cruise missile.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 27, 2013 11:04:18 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Wow, one suggestion that you don't agree with and I'm a "fanboy".  Really?  I expect this from a COD forum, which is populated by teens, but I thought I could pose a suggestion here without name calling from people who disagree.  As TBS games don't tend to have the same demographic. 

At this point, if everyone feels SOOOOO strongly about this, that it forces people to not be able to discuss something without name calling, please let this thread fade away.

It's a game, and people pose ideas, I don't understand why some people need to be so agressive about it, or start name calling.

 

Can a mod please lock this thread, as it is apparently bring some peoples blood pressure to high, and that was NEVER the intention.  Never wanted to see people getting upset over a suggestion.  Again, can a mod please lock this.

 

Thanks, and sorry for the people who were so offended.  

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 27, 2013 11:19:52 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting John Falkenberg,

Fanboys cant seem to live without there space-fighters can they? Well, GalcivII got by just fine without them and so will GalcivIII. 'Spacecraft' carriers serve no purpose. Tiny one man fighters don't make any sense tactically or strategically. No space-faring empre would invest in them. Too much expense and complexity for way too little bang. 

 

Single pilot fighters belong on the small and big screen. Enjoy them there-they serve no purpose in 4x games like Galciv series. 

 

Besides, the game even GAVE all you raving fighter-fanboys what your asking for. Tiny and S-class hulls. If you want 'fighters' do what I did.

 

I used the s-class hull and turned those into 'fighters' Now 'fighter' is a bit of a misnomer of course, since these fighters had crews of 6 and were small starships in there own right, but compared to the other craft they were stacked against, one could call them fighters if that makes you happy.

 

This whole issue is a stupid as it is pointless. Fighters only make sense in a atmosphere. Out in space, they are just under-powered, under-weaponed RPVs that happen to have a heroic steely jawed pilot with all the right stuff(and a pile of life support for him) instead of something actually useful like a larger weapons payload and a simple computer to tell it where to fly. IE-a cruise missile.

 

I was going to type out a long and sarcastic response to this. Scathing you might say. I'm not going to however because I just don't believe I have the wherewithal to argue with someone using reality as an argument in a universe so outside of the realistically possible that it makes star trek look like a documentary. I just don't.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 28, 2013 12:45:14 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

If you mouse in the border below someone else's reply you will find 4 icons on the right side of it. Thumbs up (+1 Karma), a triangle with an exclamation in it (report reply with several suggested reasons), quote, and reply.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 28, 2013 2:13:54 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Marauder_IIc,

 

(snip)

 

@TJAshen

You statement makes sense, however that is not why/where, at least for me (not speaking for ANYONE else here) but more because I have always had an interest in reading about various wars as well as watched many documentaries, and frankly WW2 had a lot of changes due to carrier bound aircraft, and that was the direction I was thinking in, as the carrier fleets both in the Pacific and the Atlantic were both strategic assets, not strictly tactical. 

Your statement "Fighters of course, probably shouldn't count against logistics, unless they are very powerful.  I like the idea of less powerful fighters myself, so they don't overshadow the ships.

Unless they are performing some unique functions that ships aren't already, it might not be worth the expendure of coding effort to implement fighters.  But if unique roles can be implemented for them, they make sense to me."  I am in 100% agreement with this, this is the direction I was going for.  Treat it like a different weapon system/systems, more from a drone perspective, not a carrier scrambling Maverick, Iceman and Jester to solve a problem, as that would not fit AT ALL.  But where you were going in your post was what I was thinking about.

(snip)

 

Hey Marauder!

Someone in another thread made the observation that fighters just being another weapons system would be kind of pointless, hence why I felt the need to elaborate on what fighters might do to distinguish themselves from say just another beam cannon.

I love the idea of a fork on the tech tree unlocking fighters and fighter improvements, as this adds more things to think about in the research department.  Like anything else, though, it needs to be a thoughtful addition, not 'we added it just because'.

This also opens up an interesting possibility r.e. other races which might have 'fighter counterpart' or even 'fighter counter' tech, but no fighters of their own.  If fighters are  simply packing beams, missiles, and mass drivers like their bigger brethren, then the current defenses should work fine, although point defense might be particularly useful for anti-fighter defense as well.

I'd imagine fighters 'swarming' targets to overwhelm their defenses, not one fighter launching, deploying a mega-missile or four, then landing to rearm.  The former fits the 'GalCiv' combat model nicely, while the latter changes the combat model entirely/shifts focus away from ships.

Similarly, it'd be a squadron of fighters that you'd send on 'deep space patrol'.  DSP's might trade a little firepower for range.  I'm envisioning a squadron of fighters moving one or two squares/hexes 'away' from their host ship, to reveal more of the map.  As they aren't 'scouts', they won't activate anomolies, but they might help locate a few of them.

Long range fighter strikes I'd envision being effective against smaller vessels, or perhaps to 'bounce' other fighters on DSP.  I picture a DSP remaining in the hex it moves to until the start of the next turn, at which point they automatically return to their mothership.  Again, you are focusing on the strategic aspects here, and letting the game engine autoresolve combat as usual.  DSP's and long range strikes every other turn makes sense to me (need time to refurbish the fighters after their mission), and also catching a Carrier with it's fighters away introduces a fun tactical element...

If 'damage degradation' is introduced, then sending a squadron to cripple a nearby ship has some benefits, as you might reduce it's movement if the ship is sufficiently weak for the squadron to have an effect.  This also might make repair systems more important than they are now (i.e. working to rebuild your drive array to get you back to 100% movement and such).

Squadrons of course would incur their own losses/dmage, so there should be a maintenance 'cost to replace/repair' function working in the background, and of course the ship would need to be in supply range of it's infrastructure.

Again, the GSB (Gratuitous Space Battles) implementation is a good example of what I picture as far as tactical combat is concerned.

The main question is how much space a hanger module should take, i.e. how many fighter units are added per module.  Multiple hangar modules might allow multiple squadrons, hence increasing the number of long range missions a ship can send, so there would need to be a balance here.

I envision fighters having an extremely limited number of hull spaces, with construction focused mainly on the 'look and feel', not a bjillion options r.e. systems.  Essentially a roving weapon platform with engines - you simply choose missile, beam, and mass driver versions, and your tech in other areas determines the effectiveness of these systems.  I'm thinking that defensively they would be rather ineffective due to their small size, focusing more on 'not getting hit' rather than trying to resist damage.  Essentially maybe a fifth or tenth the size of a tiny craft.

This does also introduce the interesting option of 'ground based fighters', i.e. you designate a planetary tile as a fighter base.  These would be good against planetary invasions, orbital attacks, and perhaps long range strikes of their own, although the last one might be a little much r.e. micromanagement of planets.

 

The Stardock guys of course are the ones that would need to get excited about fighters, and envision a way to implement them into the 4x GalCiv format in such a way that they are interesting and a worthy addition to the game, without overhsadowing the other game aspects.  I'm sure it can be done, after all Civ has had fighters and carriers for decades now.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 28, 2013 4:14:18 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Hanger modules that would allow larger ships to carry squadrons of smaller fighters was the biggest thing that I felt was missing from Galciv2.  I've been hoping for years that they would be implemented in Galciv3.  If not, I hope that the game will be moddable enough that we can come up with something ourselves.

 

I don't understand all the hate for this concept.  Whether you think it's "realistic" or not, big deal - fighters are COOL.

 

And they'd certainly add more to the game than Terror Stars did.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 28, 2013 4:43:16 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting John Falkenberg,

Besides, the game even GAVE all you raving fighter-fanboys what your asking for. Tiny and S-class hulls. If you want 'fighters' do what I did.

I used the s-class hull and turned those into 'fighters' Now 'fighter' is a bit of a misnomer of course, since these fighters had crews of 6 and were small starships in there own right, but compared to the other craft they were stacked against, one could call them fighters if that makes you happy.

You named it. Even tiny and s-class hulls are no fighter design. They are full-fledged warships on a small scale, including FTL drives, life support for months or years and many other things a real fighter doesn't have any need for. That's while I'm not happy if you call it a "fighter", because they aren't.

Fighters are much cheaper (and less personal intensive) than a starship with equal combat power. They are more flexible to use, more maneuverabie (higher mass to thrust ratio). Against an all-up starship, they can not do very much, but once the enemy ship is damaged and shields down, they could easily fight it down while the bigger ships have something more useful to do - fighting the ships that are still intact.

 

Quoting John Falkenberg,

This whole issue is a stupid as it is pointless. Fighters only make sense in a atmosphere. Out in space, they are just under-powered, under-weaponed RPVs that happen to have a heroic steely jawed pilot with all the right stuff(and a pile of life support for him) instead of something actually useful like a larger weapons payload and a simple computer to tell it where to fly. IE-a cruise missile.

An missile with an onboard AI as a targeting systems could be distracted by ECM. A pilot is smarter than any AI.

Would you mind me to tell why an atmosphere fighter is more useful than a space vessel?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 28, 2013 7:38:00 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting John Falkenberg,

Fanboys cant seem to live without there space-fighters can they? Well, GalcivII got by just fine without them and so will GalcivIII. 'Spacecraft' carriers serve no purpose. Tiny one man fighters don't make any sense tactically or strategically. No space-faring empre would invest in them. Too much expense and complexity for way too little bang. 

 

Single pilot fighters belong on the small and big screen. Enjoy them there-they serve no purpose in 4x games like Galciv series. 

 

Besides, the game even GAVE all you raving fighter-fanboys what your asking for. Tiny and S-class hulls. If you want 'fighters' do what I did.

 

I used the s-class hull and turned those into 'fighters' Now 'fighter' is a bit of a misnomer of course, since these fighters had crews of 6 and were small starships in there own right, but compared to the other craft they were stacked against, one could call them fighters if that makes you happy.

 

This whole issue is a stupid as it is pointless. Fighters only make sense in a atmosphere. Out in space, they are just under-powered, under-weaponed RPVs that happen to have a heroic steely jawed pilot with all the right stuff(and a pile of life support for him) instead of something actually useful like a larger weapons payload and a simple computer to tell it where to fly. IE-a cruise missile.

It's pointless to have big ships with antispaceflight designs. Anything but a big ball shape is useless in space combat/travel. Not that I don't like Spaceship Yamato like ships even as retro as they are... And don't get me started in lasers being colored beams that make noises in space. And what about that cosmic music that seems to play all over the galaxy???? In space, no one can hear your OST!!!! Or ships leaving no wreck behind once destroyed. Those bullets fired in space that missed their targets? No trace of them flying free forever...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 28, 2013 9:30:08 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Wintersong,
Those bullets fired in space that missed their targets? No trace of them flying free forever...

 

Now I got this mental image of a nice post-industrial civilization (not too different from our own) minding its own business when suddenly this large near nuclear sized explosions rocks one of its nation-state countryside. At first being thought it was a meteorite, they later discover that the object is a near indestructible (by their standard of tech) cylindrical object that impacted into the planet.

The tale of what happens with Mass Driver rounds that missed, they hit unsuspecting planets 30 000 years later. Though mathematically this is highly unlikely (space is really big), you'd imagine with the average amount of space battles we see in space 4X games, one is bound to hit some poor bugger eventually.

I personally like to think that is what really happened in Tunguska.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 28, 2013 10:45:35 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Perhaps we could treat fighters as a separate weapon type, similar to beam/missile/mass, with their own defense. They could add a great atmospheric element to tactical battles. Add a few unique abilities, such as supporting invasions, scouting ahead and running interference and you have a viable game mechanic. Add a few limitations; build times, lower overall DPS...

Being able to use your own personal tiny designs would be a plus as well

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108433  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000688   Page Render Time: