Sirthrax

[quote who="PaulLach" reply="3" id="3892625"] What you are saying reminds me of the Charge of the Light Brigade - it is OK to stupidly ride to your death as long as you look good doing it! [e digicons]:grin:[/e] [/quote] I'm just saying I don't know if this is something they could put together without major changes to the system. Ship behaviors sound good, but the logistics of coding them could be more difficult than it's worth.

Idea 1: I know you're already working on this, but really focus on making ship classes distinct and useful. Your ship battles can have cinematic level graphics, but having the same ship copy pasted 30 times just makes them boring. A fleet made up of at least 2 ship types is far more interesting than 1. If you get 3 or more visually distinct ships on average though, that really sells it. It gives the player a lot of interesting interactions to watch.

[quote who="PaulLach" reply="1" id="3892592"] It drives me nuts to watch a battle replay and watch my ships armed with kinetic weapons, which can fire on every phase, blow past the enemy ship and go out of range for a few phases. It also drives me nuts to watch my ships armed with missiles fire their missiles when they get into range and then blithely keep sailing toward the enemy and into the range of the enemy's beam and kinetic weapons while my missile weapons have to

In discord we discussed how currently kinetic weapons dominate ship battles. I've found missiles and beams to have little use outside their barrage functions. I think this is in large part due to the fact missiles and beams have relatively low damage output compared to kinetic weapons as shown below. An interesting question in the context of this game is

This game is from the latest 1.55 build where I played a race that focused on technology. I have the Voyager and Ancient traits for this race. I planned on this being a fairly balanced civ. I'm currently on turn 101 and have surpassed almost every civ in tech, military, and manufacturing. I'm playing against a mix of Normal, Genius, and Incredible A.I. I want to see the A.I. compete with the player so here's how I managed to beat these A.I. I actually

Cool, I'll plan on starting another game when this comes out

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="27" id="3891409"] The GC4 series is really in its infancy. I want to see this game develop such that there's a full own military industrial complex designing lots of different options to deal with different types of threats and write the AI to focus on those as well. Anyone who keeps up on things like the development of aricraft or tanks or even aircraft carriers will have a good understanding of what we are looking to do. [/quote] <

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="27" id="3891409"] So just a few thoughts: I am thinking we should move hard counter stuff into the special mods area. This would require a lot of tech tree changes but I think it's time to do that. I just don't think Point Defense is worthy of having its own called out stat on every UI. When I designed some o

Could you add a gameplay setting that hides the battle predictions if checked? They reduce the risk I'm willing to take because I have a good guess as to what the outcome will be. I'd prefer to have to try and figure out if I can take an enemy fleet on by checking the combat rating.

[quote who="DivineWrath" reply="20" id="3890739"] Well, I'm having trouble reading the new fleet cards. What does a combat rating of 13 mean? Do I have good weapons and good defense? I find that a good mix of weapons and defense is usually required, so a single rating is misleading to me. I used to be able to take a quick look at the attack types, defense types, and hit points. Though the numbers can be a bit odd for me since I like having high hit points and high repair speed

That's because you can't attach things to parts you custom made and saved. If you do you'll get this issue. There's also a couple of Stardock parts that will have this issue as well. If they look like they're made of several simpler parts then don't attach to them. Always try and attach to the simplest parts you can

[quote who="pixelcowboy" reply="25" id="3890155"] IMO this is a really weird question to ask during an Early Access. Game as it currently is lacks a lot of polish, content, and many promised features aren't working or implemented. If the choice is between finishing the game or having a campaign, then yeah, please finish your Early Access game. [/quote] When GC4 was coming out, they asked if people wanted the battle veiwer even though other aspects of the game would rec

If you did do something like expansive galactic events I would like them to be game altering events that leave the player scrambling to respond. I would prefer they be near unstoppable events that rip through the galaxy putting the player on their back foot as they try and make a comeback. You could add a slider to the game setup screen that allows the player to set the severity of these events from minor catastrophe to apocalyptic cataclysm. There are so many unique eve

I'm personally not for a campaign. I would much rather see focus put towards the sandbox aspects such as adding new features that improve that. I do love the lore of the game and I want to see more lore, but a campaign creates a forced storyline where what will happen has pretty much been layed out, I just have to follow along. I would rather see story elements added to sandbox mode instead. (I would expect these to be DLC with maybe a new race or two with new sh

<span style="border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 17px; line-height: inherit; font-family: 'Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web (West European)', 'Segoe UI', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseli

If carrier modules will remain in the game I wouldn't make them complicated this time around (Maybe in a future expansion you could add custom loadouts for carrier modules) I would suggest two modules. Fighter Carrier Module: Provides 2 fighters that have a mixture of the highest non special kinetic or beam weapon and the highest non special shields or point defense. Bomber Carrier Module: Provides 2 bombers that have a mixture of the highest non special mi

As the saying goes "a picture is worth a thousand words". In this case I sincerely believe that there are too many numbers to communicate what is going on to the player effectively. Having them sift through the numbers will create a lot of complaints about how it's too difficult to figure out strategy. For the record I want to see that complexity added to the game. Don't give up. I would seriously consider using a graph that gives the player a high level over

While firing arcs are realistic and would provide a fun element to ship design it's probably too in depth for this game. I think range and tactical speed are important to leave in. Especially if you bring thrusters back in that boost tactical speed. Being able to get certain ship classes in range sooner will be extremely important to defend larger ships like dreadnoughts.

In GC4 I never really needed sensors. Now those modules actually have an important use. I consider this a great change for both military and exploitation aspects of the game.

DPS is generally a good way to show weapon stats. I came up with something similar that also to into account mass and accuracy. The problem is DPS ignores a lot of the stats. On the subject of an easy to understand interface I had a couple ideas. The first one is the one I proposed in my own thread. Basically it's a cooler version of a bar graph. It would act as a way to determine how the fleet was built. Each weapon and ship would have a rating for what

I'm glad Stardock is so willing to allow us to have input into the game. I'm a lifelong fan because of this and the ship designer. Couple ideas though I'm not sure about feasibility. When I offer numbers, they're guesses. I'd need to separate the battle system from the game and run a couple thousand battles to graph how these would actually function. Ion: Medium fire rate, medium range low attack potential, medium accuracy. If this weapon does dam

Will do.

Side note why I think a chess like system would be fun. I doubt most players play against Godlike or Incredible A.I. Most of the time it's extremely difficult to compete with speed, combat, manufacturing, and research buffs these A.I. recieve. I generally play against at least few Incredible A.I. that I up to Godlike when I start to catch up. A chess like system has benefits for both types of players. Players playing below Incredible wouldn't really have to

I wanted to add my 2 cents here. I agree that they need to better convey how the system works so that you can make more quick tactical decisions. I don't think the RPS system was that great. If was functional sure, but it was too simple. I would like a much more complex underlying system that has a simple user interface overlay. Take chess for instance. The rules and logic are relatively simple and easy to interact with, but I'll never bea

I saw someone discuss how the new system is too difficult because they can't look at it and determine how to react to the enemy ships in a recent forum post. I wanted to offer another idea on my Radical Suggestions I posed above. One problem with splitting the ships into 10 classes and focusing on targeting by ship size is the how this would affect players understanding, especially new player understanding of how combat works. How would they know what fleets are good at wh