|
|
|
|
 |

May 9th, 2002, 03:02 PM
|
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 125
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Next patch requests
1) Improved ministers.
2) Improved ministers.
3) Improved ministers.
4) A popup dialog box for colony ships asking "Do you want to leave the planet without loading population?"
5) Hard code the QNP system. The current system makes no sense. The easiest/best way would be to make the engine size, cost, supply storage, and supply usage proportional to the hull size. The same could be done with the bridge, life support, and crew quarters. There would be reductions for colony ships and transports, but their combat speed would be way down.
6) Add a "Maintain current formation" option to combat so that if the leader moves forward 2, everybody moves forward 2, and if the leader moves back 2, everybody moves back 2 instead of trying to wheel the entire formation around.
7) Make mines and minesweeping less than 100 percent effective. There should be a chance that a mine will miss and that minesweeping will fail.
|

May 9th, 2002, 03:35 PM
|
 |
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Penury
Posts: 1,574
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Next patch requests
a miraculous patch that somehow keeps the strategic and design playability of SEIVG but then jumps to a 'Homeworld-esque' visual extravaganza on the tactical side
yeah yeah I know - no chance but I keep on smoking this shoe polish and hoping!
__________________
Ook ook ook ook OOK
|

May 9th, 2002, 03:56 PM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,451
Thanks: 1
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Re: Next patch requests
Quote:
|
5) Hard code the QNP system. The current system makes no sense. The easiest/best way would be to make the engine size, cost, supply storage, and supply usage proportional to the hull size. The same could be done with the bridge, life support, and crew quarters. There would be reductions for colony ships and transports, but their combat speed would be way down.
|
Ahhh! No!!!
Even though I love QNP, and am pretty much using it exclusively, it SHOULD NOT be hardcoded.
Adding it to the default data files is fine, but for goodness sake don't hardcode things like that!
__________________
Things you want:
|

May 9th, 2002, 03:58 PM
|
|
Private
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 7
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Next patch requests
I used to play a pretty cool Star Wars derived strategic game. I cant remember what it was called, but it introduced characters with different abilities into play, and these characters (with help from special forces and spies and such) were the ones who performed intelligence activities.
Id like to see every ship have a captain, every fleet have an admiral, every world or system have a govenor or a general, and so on and so forth. If your ships have master computers then those would be AIs; treated as characters like any other.
You could infiltrate these characters onto other worlds to make contact with rebels or steal technologies or whatever.
I dont think you should be able to perform espionage on an empire you have no contact with. Intelligence is something like trade, and linked to trade - its potential grows with contact and time.
|

May 9th, 2002, 04:26 PM
|
|
Private
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 9
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Next patch requests
I would like to see an ability to organize fighters into swarms with a little more precision than is current. I like to use fighters as system defense squadrons, but the game organizes all 100 or so fighters into a single unit on the combat map.
|

May 9th, 2002, 04:43 PM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,451
Thanks: 1
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Re: Next patch requests
Quote:
|
I dont think you should be able to perform espionage on an empire you have no contact with.
|
Well, you can't. Though, you may be using a different definition of contact.
An infiltration factor would be nice, though... some sort of infiltration project would increase the chance of success of your later projects. There would have to be a small decrease over time, and you would lose larger amounts when attacking with a project (since the people involved expose themselves doing it).
When you are infiltrating operatives, there should be a multiplier based on your current relations.
Someone you're at war with would be very hard to add operatives to, while partnership allies would be easy to infiltrate.
__________________
Things you want:
|

May 9th, 2002, 04:48 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 806
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Next patch requests
Just thought of another one:
Separate strategic and tactical movement points. So you would have strategic engines for moving within/between systems and tactical engines for moving in battles. For many ships, you would balance these engines and things would be as they are now. But you could make special-purpose ships with minimal tactical movement (e.g., minesweeper, pop transport, medical, construction, supply, repair, explore, colonize) and could use the extra space either for more stuff or for more strategic engines. You could also do the opposite -- make vessels with max tactical movement and little or no strategic movement (e.g., fighter, planetary defender, combat drone). You could even have things like allowing sats and bases to have 1 combat MP but no strategic MP, which usually would help with planetary defense.
Would also be cool to have a special component needed for using warp points, but that may be too complicated for some people's tastes (not to mention the AI).
__________________
Give me a scenario editor, or give me death! Pretty please???
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|