Cikomyr

[quote who="Zydor" reply="34" id="3406245"] There is a bottom line to all this - do you trust Brad or not? Me? every time. Were there issues in the past, for sure, a couple, so whats new, its life in the Gaming World. The Massive difference is Brad will pull Heaven and Earth to fix any Major Failures until they perform as designed, and we the Gamers don't get screwed paying more cash for the fix. The Industry has been littered for Decades by Money Driven C

All right; maybe a rock-paper-cissors type of fleet combat wouldn't be the best way to go. And I agree that miniaturization technology should eventually allow for smaller-scale ship modules; but then you end up with new high-tier supermodules that can only fit on the largest starships. But I did not wanted to decide WHAT the starship missions should be. That should be to the players (and the AI) to decide, design and apply. Obviously, if you want to favour intercept

[quote who="RonLugge" reply="5" id="3406323"] 3. It is better to ditch an unworkable feature and try something else than endlessly try and tinker it to save it from oblivion. There were a few features early on in Elemental that were 'sounds like a good idea at the time' but totally unworkable. The prime example I remember was sovereign death = game over. A cool idea but a gameplay killer as who wants to risk a game-over in something you've played 20 hours on, espe

[quote who="RonLugge" reply="8" id="3406319"] Re: carriers Why? Why on earth would you build carriers in space? The concept makes sense for a wet-navy because airplanes maneuver in a different medium than ships. It makes no sense in a space-navy because all your vessels are operating in the same medium, subject to the same physical limitations. Answer: because it's awesome, so find an excuse! Fine, fine...

I liked SotS's randomized Tech Tree, and randomized research time. Made each game unique, you could not follow a pre-determined research path. The only thing I disliked was that once you didn't rolled a certain tech, you could never get it. Would be nice if you could invest research in finding new pathways in the Tech Tree.

A single constructor should be needed to startup the starbase. Once it's been initiated, we should simply have it build by planetary production, with a penalty linked to the distance between planet and starbase.

[quote who="yarodin" reply="1" id="3406121"] I'm absolutly in favor of diversified ship types! But all you need then is some game mechanics to make sure your vessels behave like their role demands. A carrier consisting of nothing but fighter bays and maybe some flak guns has no business in the first attack wave. Its fighters, yes. But the fighters needs a base to retrun to when the battle is over. Same for the other classes.[/quote] Well, this idea

Well, SotS had an elegant system to limit the spread of colonization. Obviously, "paradise worlds" were highly sought-after and grabbed ASAP, but most planets have strings attached to their colonization. Inhospitable worlds are costly to maintain; their harsh condition makes it hard to get an industry running and even harder to develop your population. It's a good way to make sure you limit your initial rush to a few key colonies (again, except if you find DA PARADISE)

All right. I just loved the cinematic; but something that struct me: the "Crusade Fleet" was composed of a few huge behemot ships and plenty of support vessels around them. Something that rarely happens in my previous GalCiv games; as the game always played with this simple fact: bigger is better. Therefore, you ended up with a fleet of Cruisers at the end. It's not as impressive, in my humble opinion, as a properly constructed (and somewhat realistic) fleet. It&#39