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.

heyas, since iv been having so much trouble with the game since the patch, Im wondering can we please get the old version of the game to redownload to use until the bugs are fixed in the patch version please? I really want to play the game but cant play the patch version keeps freezing up on me:((

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.

If you didn't archive the previous version, there's no other way for you to obtain it.

*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.

What Paradoxnt has said.

A simple, but imho good idea.

Hey Vandenburg, thanks for backing the idea.

Thats a good idea, I like it, but the translation shouldn't be 1 to 1. Maybe 1.5 or 2 to 1. That way we don't suddenly double fleet sizes due to the fact that we don't defend 70% of the empire.

Completely unrelated, but I like the idea of a 'focus point' a ammount of free tactical/fleet points, or cost which you can focus.

IE focus on Defense gives you extra tactical points or reduces the cost of building defenses by 10%. A focus on fleets decreases cost, or increases anti-matter reserve or something. Focus on research reduces cost etcetc.

If could be like your classic tax-o-meters from civ games, but just one pick, no min/maxing. One feature of your empire is the focus and you can excel in it. Install a minimum time to be focused of 5 minutes, and then you can't abuse it by constantly shifting its attention every time you build something new.

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.

I hate to say it para, but you misread him. While the system you describe would be nice, he seemed to be talking about scrapping the capitol-ship crew research topics in favor of tactical point buildings.

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.

We got rid of the "space farms" before the betas started. We're not bringing them back (that's what your tactical buildings amount to).

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.

Hehe, Space Farms. We could have capital ship ranchers that tend to the ship herds as well.

Okay then, how about Kryo's idea of including orbital capital ship training facilies as tactical structures. These facilities would be used for increasing the available number of capital ships instead of the present research topic.

It still amounts to space farms.

Hi all,
I'm more from the traditional 4x strategy game side and have a hard time adjusting to ordering up large ships at a moments notice. That takes a great deal of the strategy of fleet building (and positioning) out of the game. However, I see others like instant gratification.

It would be helpful if the game had an option (slider or drop down) to let us adjust build time (and even research) so we wouldn't have to mess with data files.

I can imagine that it's hard to find everyone's sweet spot regarding timing. Maybe this could help.

Aloid

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

A few requests from me

-View/camera control via the numpad
-Option to control the speed of the view/camera/zoom
-Option to remove icons above planets

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!

AFAIK the non-capital ships have no antimatter. Since it's only used for specials, non-existent on all but capitals.

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

Regardless you get the idea

... Actually, just about every single ship in the game (and most buildings) have antimatter.

Colony ships colonize, light frigates anti-matter drain, LRM frigates have a bombardment power, hoshiko's use it for repairs, command ships use it, and even Kodiaks use it for their sprint power.

Siege Frigates and flak frigates come to mind as those that don't have any, while carrier cruisers and hangars come to mind as units that have it for no apparent reason.

Cool, I wasn't aware of that.

I've read that the Vasari have a Phase Space Inhibitor cruiser (from that early ship descriptions website ).

I hope that ship uses the old style 'stop all escape' style of phase space inhibitor.

I also hope that its inhibitor uses antimatter & as a limited range...for balance reasons.

Of course, if it uses the new style of 'stop deeper phase lane incursions into owned territory' phase space interdiction, then let it have a gravity well wide effect. This might make it useful around stars in systems you have entire ownership of.

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.