Re: Ship Talk
 

Kazimer Pulaski comes to mind... :doh:

Don't forget the science or mining hero! Where they bring advantages in their fields to your empire.

Re: Ship Talk
 

How would an empire earn points? Some kind of prestige system?

Re: Ship Talk
 

Not sure, it was a vague idea :P Maybe you build "academy" facilities which produce leader points, or maybe they could even be generated based on what a ship or planet is doing... a ship with lots of experience might have a chance to generate a legendary commander on board, while a planet with lots of research labs could have a chance to generate a legendary scientist?

Re: Ship Talk
 

Maybe a prestige system? The leader would need to be present at important events to gain prestige points (PP) and you could decide how to spend them to improve the leader's abilities.

Re: Ship Talk
 

Most games that have training set limits on how much you can get. The rest is based on actual combat or science missions. It makes sense, you can't become a legend sitting in an academy! (although I know some people who think so) :rolleyes:
Also, once assigned, the officer could not be transfered to another ship. This will avoid heavy game mechanics to track this.

Re: Ship Talk
 

The option to choose and further customize a "leader ability" to me would be welcome and also allow for further customization (attack bonus, trade bonus, etc.) I also agree that there should be a severe limit on abilities gained strictly though training (vs experience) and would also add that the officer/politician etc. should not only be tied to a specific ship but should die if the ship is destroyed - which would add an element of a high value target vs a green ship.

Re: Ship Talk
 

I noticed early on Ed mentioned Stars!

One of the design aspects of Stars! I loved is that shrewd design can compensate for lack of technology (within reason).

A lot of posts mention players want firing arcs for weapons. Thats fine, however what I would love to see is the ability through shrewd design to compensate for lack of firing arcs.

For example.

Lets say my beam weapons only fire in a 90 degree arc. My opponent has vessels with beams that fire in a 180 Degree arc. Economically I can't research to a new tech AND build a new fleet in time to defeat him.

so I look at my design options and realise I can compensate partially by giving my vessels better manoeuvring jets (turn facing quicker) and better computers (getting better initiative).

The result is that whilst my design isn't as advanced it can hold its own (in the short term) against my opponents design.

This only one strategy, ideally it would be great if there were three or four different design strategies players could employ to give ship building some real depth.

Re: Ship Talk
 

Sorry, but for me that's sound like micromanagement hell and the AI.... :(

Re: Ship Talk
 

You will probably die! :shock: Anticipation and strategy are two key elements that you want to eliminate by giving someone a "work around" to being out played in your designs. You want to penalize a player for designing a better ship then you.

Re: Ship Talk
 

No Xrati not at all.

My point is better technology is not the be all and end all for fleet victory. Well thought out design and overall strategy should play a major part as well.

Weapons systems are not the the only factor to influence combat. Electronic Warfare, Targetting Systems, Chaff, Decoys etc would also play a significant role as they do in our present day military.

Q, as for too much micromanagement or the AI couldn't handle it. I figure if a 16 bit game from the 90s written in Visual C could handle it. A game written now could easily accomplish this.

Cheers

Pydna