|
|
|
 |

November 19th, 2003, 02:38 AM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern CA, USA
Posts: 18,394
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Re: Updated the FAQ
Quote:
One advantage for remote mining that I didn't see discussed was that it costs you no space on your planets at all. Playing a race of god-like researchers, I got a HUGE advantage in tech very early by getting well over 60% of my minerals from remote mining ships, and stuffing every planet I could find full to the brim with research centers.
|
You can't mine a colonized planet though...
|

November 19th, 2003, 03:59 AM
|
 |
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 134
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Updated the FAQ
Quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
quote: One advantage for remote mining that I didn't see discussed was that it costs you no space on your planets at all. Playing a race of god-like researchers, I got a HUGE advantage in tech very early by getting well over 60% of my minerals from remote mining ships, and stuffing every planet I could find full to the brim with research centers.
|
You can't mine a colonized planet though... You can't colonize an asteroid belt either, early in the game. And most small moons can be exploited much more through mining than colonization. What's your point?
__________________
I am not presently at liberty to divulge that information, as it may compromise our agents in the field.
|

November 19th, 2003, 08:45 PM
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Updated the FAQ
Argh....stupid question that I *know* has been answered somewhere before, but here goes:
Under the Allegiance Subverter section, the FAQ says "In Versions earlier than 1.80, ships with a destroyed master computer CAN be captured [by allegiance subverter]."
So, am I to take this to mean that in Version 1.8, a ship with a destroyed MC *cannot* be captured by my AS?
Thanks,
Alarik
(biting my nails until PBW gets back up)
|

November 19th, 2003, 09:00 PM
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 5,085
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Updated the FAQ
That is true, yes.
__________________
Phoenix-D
I am not senile. I just talk to myself because the rest of you don't provide adequate conversation.
- Digger
|

November 19th, 2003, 09:04 PM
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Updated the FAQ
Well, that stinks...any way around this?
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
That is true, yes.
|
|

November 19th, 2003, 10:29 PM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern CA, USA
Posts: 18,394
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Re: Updated the FAQ
No. AS + Comp Virus was way too powerful before. Something had to be done. 
|

November 19th, 2003, 10:43 PM
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Updated the FAQ
Yeah, I can't really argue with that...I'll still argue though that, from a conceptual *and* practical point of view, that a better solution is to make those ships with *only* MCs invulnerable to AS, but those with MCs *and* crew quarters/bridges to be vulnerable. Logic being this: if it is solely a computer controlled ship, and the computer is destroyed, there is enough residual software to run it at the degraded (loss of control spaces) level; but if there is a crew onboard *also*, they take control of the ship and hence are then vulnerable to psychic enslavement.
Just myh two cents, I know it's not gonna change, but I can dream of a way to deal with Talismans...
thanks,
Alarik
Quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No. AS + Comp Virus was way too powerful before. Something had to be done.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|