omg its a forum and i shorten my text because it is much easier and faster and y put capitals in whats the point its an extra key to hold down which frankly i cant be arsed to use. any 1 that carnt read text needs sortin out cos its easy to read. by the way on my last point i think the reason you cant scroll on some maps is cos they have but the boarders of the map to close in soo you cant scroll.

have u archived the pervious patch? if soo right click on the game and right click on restor archive this should bring up a menue and click on the 1 you want to install.

*A suggestion for Ironclad.

Tactical Points are basically potential military resources used to power/maintain military structures in orbit around a planet. So why can't unused tactical potential go into powering/maintaining ships?

Don't get me wrong here. I am NOT suggesting that you be able to convert fleet points into tactical points around a planet. I understand that this would result in a lot of super fortress turtling strategies = bad, definitely bad.

What I AM suggesting is that any unused tactical points be added as a bonus to your Fleet Point total. This will allow players to choose to leave certain planets exposed to allow for a larger offensive fleet. This will add some more depth to the strategic choices available to players.

Nor would this be unbalancing since ships already have a higher 'point' cost than similar powered defensive structures (ie, a Hangar fields TWO squadrons and takes up 4 points while a weaker light carrier has only ONE squadron and takes up 6 points).

Doing this would also have the added benefit of shutting me (and others) up about how military tactical points and fleet points represent pretty much the same thing and should be interchangeable. (from tactical points to fleet points, but not the reverse, of course).


As for Logistical structures, I can see how they are run and maintained by civilian corporations/governments and would not have interchangeable supply points with the military tactical/fleet points. Arguing that Logisitical points should also be transferable would be like arguing that a University could be used to supply your ships and manufacture/supply ammunition.

Hey Vandenburg, thanks for backing the idea.

Kryo just ironed out the idea I was working on a couple of posts up. What he suggested is perfect.

Bascically, Logistical slots stay the same. However, Tactical slots would be used for making either weapon platforms (hangars or guass canons) OR Fleet Supply depots (military ports that supply fleets with fuel, equipment, ammo, and so on).

So fleet support points would be generated by military orbital ports (occupying tactical slots) instead of planets (and planet upgrades).

This would give players extra regional strategic decisions (defense versus offense). It would also make more sense than the contrived logistics/tactical/fleet system.

Oh, well that is cool too, but I kind of prefer the idea I fleshed out 2 posts ago. Glad you like it too.

Not only does it make logical sense, there is no risk of stalemating super fortress planets being made (which is a big concern for Ironclad). Nobody wants to play a game that can't be won.

Yarlen wanted that cross-posted here

Personally, I love the idea -- for those of you that have played SupCom (and didn't run away screaming because of an irrational dislike of the icon's used at distant zooms) it had an incredibly powerful and (reasonably) intuitive way point system.

You could use shift to stack up multiple orders, just like in this game, but each individual way point could still be manipulated after it was placed using the shift key. You could move your move command to a different spot, or just cancel the attack command with a mouse click (IIRC, shift-alt-rclick, but I'd have to go double check that, its muscle memory for me these days).

This means that rather than the current all-or-nothing "stop" button, you could cancel one mistaken order without aborting all of them.

Some other useful features was the co-ordinated assault option, which allowed you to have several forces co-ordinate an assault on the same unit from different directions (had that been based off an area select instead of individual unit attack option, that would have been really useful, IMO). You could create patrol routes just by having units move onto the first way point in a movement string, too, I believe. And there are other tricks they didn't get around to doing, unfortunately.

It still amounts to space farms.

Just to clarify... the build time adjustment would apply an entire category at a time. So you could select to increase the build time of all ships by 50%, or decrease it to instantly build.

I'm not thinking that this would write back to the data files... it would apply as a modifier when the system is checking build time.

The end goal for me is to have situations where I've planned what ships I want, have them in the queue and have to think about defending those locations until the ships are built. Alternatively, if I've planned an assault and it goes badly, I'd better have already started building more ships or I will have left myself vulnerable. This gives me a valid reason to try and pull ships out of the line before loosing them completely.

Aloid

This idea came up in a thread regarding command cruisers, but I really liked it so I felt I should say it here-

Ship Range Limitations:

Basically your NON-Capital ships (meaning capital ships are immune to this) would have a limit to how far they can move beyond your controlled space without incurring a penalty.

Fleets in adjacent uncontrolled/enemy system = no penalty
Fleets more than adjacent to controlled territory = 1/2 antimatter regen and 1/2 dmg

New Structure: Tactical: Military Supply Base: increase the 'no penalty' zone up to 3 spaces from the Military Supply Base. Thus if you have one on your out-most colony, your ships won't suffer any penalty unless they were 4 systems away.

The scout ship of course would be immune to this penalty.

WHY?

I believe this will increase the strategy a great deal, as you will not be able to use one mega fleet and simply go forth and destroy all of your enemies colonies in one flight out as easily. Against a reasonably competent enemy you will have to consolidate and slow your advance to avoid your fleet being at half capacity against an enemy who will be at full capacity.

This will also increase strategy in that once you are attacked you can send one fleet to destroy the enemy supply base, and then have another fleet face the enemy. You may be outnumbered but you are doing 2X damage!

This may force the enemy to place his supply bases a whole system deeper into his territory, limiting his assault to 2 systems from home. This will also make it harder for 'rush' strategies that few people like. It will be very hard for someone to sneak a fleet to my home system and win a fight when he is 6 systems away and focused everything on an attack that will be at half strength rather than invest in his empire.

Some players may even attempt to entice an enemy to attack deep into their territory for the purpose of suddenly cutting off their supplies and then counter attacking said enemy fleet/planets.

The best reason for this:

One extra building! and its very simple and easy to grasp and play!

I thought they did for phase jumping... and many of them do have special abilities.

Regardless you get the idea

Cool, I wasn't aware of that.

Another idea for Ironclad.

Why not make it so that Phase Space Inhibitors only block Phase Lanes between 'friendly' planets that BOTH have an Inhibitor built.

Not only would this make a bit more 'Lore' pseudo-science logic, it would also add another layer to alliance teamwork.