What I find lacking in Space Combat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

HsojVvad -> What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/11/2010 10:19:37 PM)

I have found a space ship in the game and claimed it as mine. It is a capital ship. This is the first time I had something so big, and now I really see how lacking space combat in DW is.

I sent our this capital ship to see what this mysterious place I was told about. First time I sent an explorer ship out and was destroyed by pirates. So this time I thought ok, the capital ship will go and deal if it's hidden pirates. To my shock and horror, and I loved it, there must have been like 50 Kaltros, (sorry if I spelt it wrong) and I loved how I could attack it. It would fire at long disntance, and then I was dismayed that it closed it on the brood, and then get attacked by the whold bunch.

Why can't we issue orders to attack from far away and not up close? Why can't we design a ship that would have longer range fire power but shoot at a distance? I would love to have ships with tractor beams to slow down ships as well when they try to 'warp' out.

Another thing I don't like, is what is the purpose of damage control? To take less than 20% damage? WTF? That is what shields and armour is for. Damage control should be able to fix the ship after combat espically when in enemy territory. What about the Star Ship Voyager? If it was in DW it would never be able to fix herself.

So things I would like to see, are:

1 Tactics. We need to be able to tell our ships or fleets how to behave. Just shoot at one target and then they stop and do nothing while the other enemies are getting away is no fun. Yes this game is done in Real Time, but it's not a RTS game. We should be able to say shoot at long range only. Or once an enemy is destroyed it should target another enemy that is close by.

2 Maybe something about having an option, of using less fire power, but increase defence from evasding or have ships going faster in speed. Or maybe increas firepower but defence and speed will be decreased. More fire power, but easier to hit in return for example. Like when we see in movies and shows and books, where they divert the power to shields or the engines to get more power. That would mean power is taken away from the weapons or need more power to the weapons, it takes power away from the engines making the ship less manoverable so easier to hit, but the shots have more wallop to them.

3 Have damage contol be useful after combat is done. If you have 20% damage control, it shouldn't be 20% reduced damage, but fix the ship after combat. Maybe you can't fix the ship in tip top condtion, but get it going. So if shields are damaged you get 20% shields or speed or what ever. I just don't like how damage contol is being used right now.

4. Have combat mean something. Why bother attacking ships that can't move. All that does is cause me to waste more fuel. Maybe having an experiance level, if not for ships, but maybe for leaders then. We should have Captians, and Admirals. What about helms men to make the ships more faster or more manoverable so they it's harder to hit in combat. Have leaders or helmsmen that have a bonus to hit in combat, or engineers who can make the shields last long or repair the ship faster after combat or even during combat.

I just feel that the combat system is making this game a classic of what it can be. I am loving this game so much now, but feel it's just missing that little somethting.

I am just wundering what others think of the combat system. Maybe there is something that I am missing and maybe I can learn from it. If this is all there is too combat, hopefully something can be added in an update, or an expansion. Yes I know the game just came out, but I am looking forward to the day there is more I can do with DW. This is becoming one of my most favorite games and I want to see it improve.




mllange -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/11/2010 10:33:32 PM)

??? Everything you said in this post is what some of us have been saying for the last several weeks since the game was released. You are just now getting around to your first capital ship? Unbelievable. You've been one of the biggest enthusiasts on the forum for weeks, yet didn't even bother to get a capital ship before now... and you have been trying to answer our constructive criticism with that fanboy spin ???

Not that I disagree with your points regarding combat. The game is nothing more than lightly entertaining during the early stages of development. Once you have a mid- to large-sized empire and have decent sized ships that simply seem like bigger versions of the smaller ships it becomes boring, dull, uninspired and a mess.



Kamonrius -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/11/2010 10:45:41 PM)

Give time please [:D] there is so much that can be done to DW's combat, just let time waltz if you must give it a break so be it but simply wait. she shall come



HsojVvad -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/11/2010 10:46:03 PM)

I have been researching really slowly and keep restarting too much since I love the colonization phase of the game. Also, I loved my destroyers, I had no need to go bigger, so I got so use to useing them all the time. I was so imersed in the game, I forgot to make anything bigger than a destroyer even when I had the capability of building bigger ships.



PDiFolco -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/11/2010 11:53:22 PM)

What's really lacking is some kind of rock-paper-scissors effects with different weapon/armor types, as it was in MoO, SE, etc... Shield-breaking weapons, weapons ignoring shields, targetting engines, power sources, psychic weapons, long range weapons, area weapons, missile defenses etc ... Currently we have guns that do 4 damage, then 6,8,12,16.. same for missiles, that's quite poor.



aprezto -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 12:18:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

What's really lacking is some kind of rock-paper-scissors effects with different weapon/armor types, as it was in MoO, SE, etc... Shield-breaking weapons, weapons ignoring shields, targetting engines, power sources, psychic weapons, long range weapons, area weapons, missile defenses etc ... Currently we have guns that do 4 damage, then 6,8,12,16.. same for missiles, that's quite poor.


Bravo - absolutely the case.

Beams always hit but are stopped by shields
Missles can be ECMed but do more damage, have worse innate targeting but instantly impact the hull
etc

There is so much that could be added to the mix here - but this would require a better 'ship type' way of managing designs.



Kamonrius -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 1:17:10 AM)

:D just make combat mechanics and effects  (battle damage turret points, explosions etc etc) akin to gratuitous space battles and all worries in this reguard would be nulled :D

My Opinion



Erik Rutins -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 1:28:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Davor
Why can't we issue orders to attack from far away and not up close? Why can't we design a ship that would have longer range fire power but shoot at a distance? I would love to have ships with tractor beams to slow down ships as well when they try to 'warp' out.


You can actually, it's set on the design screen.

quote:

Another thing I don't like, is what is the purpose of damage control? To take less than 20% damage? WTF? That is what shields and armour is for. Damage control should be able to fix the ship after combat espically when in enemy territory. What about the Star Ship Voyager? If it was in DW it would never be able to fix herself.


I'm not entirely understanding you - only the most basic damage control tech has no self-repair capability. Damage Control historically was also more about keeping damage from becoming catastrophic and then doing basic repairs after battle.

quote:

1 Tactics. We need to be able to tell our ships or fleets how to behave. Just shoot at one target and then they stop and do nothing while the other enemies are getting away is no fun. Yes this game is done in Real Time, but it's not a RTS game. We should be able to say shoot at long range only. Or once an enemy is destroyed it should target another enemy that is close by.


There are two different points here. You can set tactics on the design screen. As far as ship behavior in combat, automated ships behave differently from manual control ships and we're already looking to add in some more tactical intelligence to manual control ships as it's clear that people would prefer that to having them "completely manual".

quote:

2 Maybe something about having an option, of using less fire power, but increase defence from evasding or have ships going faster in speed. Or maybe increas firepower but defence and speed will be decreased. More fire power, but easier to hit in return for example. Like when we see in movies and shows and books, where they divert the power to shields or the engines to get more power. That would mean power is taken away from the weapons or need more power to the weapons, it takes power away from the engines making the ship less manoverable so easier to hit, but the shots have more wallop to them.


A lot of this depends on how you design your ship, whether it's got plenty of extra power or just enough. Making this a tactical micro-management decision seems to me like it's not right for the scale of this game though.

quote:

3 Have damage contol be useful after combat is done. If you have 20% damage control, it shouldn't be 20% reduced damage, but fix the ship after combat. Maybe you can't fix the ship in tip top condtion, but get it going. So if shields are damaged you get 20% shields or speed or what ever. I just don't like how damage contol is being used right now.


As noted above, the more advanced damage control techs can repair components.

quote:

4. Have combat mean something. Why bother attacking ships that can't move. All that does is cause me to waste more fuel. Maybe having an experiance level, if not for ships, but maybe for leaders then. We should have Captians, and Admirals. What about helms men to make the ships more faster or more manoverable so they it's harder to hit in combat. Have leaders or helmsmen that have a bonus to hit in combat, or engineers who can make the shields last long or repair the ship faster after combat or even during combat.


Helmsmen? Crewing each ship in detail again seems like we're getting game scales mixed up. Admirals with game effects I could see, some experience could also make sense.

quote:

I just feel that the combat system is making this game a classic of what it can be. I am loving this game so much now, but feel it's just missing that little somethting.


I think that as you get into more detail, you run the risk of losing the focus of the game. It certainly does not have everything that Star Fleet Battles or Full Thrust or something like that, but tell me how those games did at creating and managing an entire empire? [;)] Nothing against adding more to ship battles, but there are a lot of areas in the game that have the potential for expansion and improvement, this is a first release that's only a couple of weeks out from the gates.

Regards,

- Erik



Erik Rutins -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 1:29:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
What's really lacking is some kind of rock-paper-scissors effects with different weapon/armor types, as it was in MoO, SE, etc... Shield-breaking weapons, weapons ignoring shields, targetting engines, power sources, psychic weapons, long range weapons, area weapons, missile defenses etc ... Currently we have guns that do 4 damage, then 6,8,12,16.. same for missiles, that's quite poor.


There are so many things that could still be done in terms of adding techs and interactions between techs and new design options. I agree, and there's a long road ahead. [8D]



HsojVvad -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 1:49:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: Davor
Why can't we issue orders to attack from far away and not up close? Why can't we design a ship that would have longer range fire power but shoot at a distance? I would love to have ships with tractor beams to slow down ships as well when they try to 'warp' out.


You can actually, it's set on the design screen.


Ah so there is something that I forgot. I am glad I made this post, I will go back and double check and see what was made. What would you suggest for the sips to shoot from afar?

quote:


quote:

Another thing I don't like, is what is the purpose of damage control? To take less than 20% damage? WTF? That is what shields and armour is for. Damage control should be able to fix the ship after combat espically when in enemy territory. What about the Star Ship Voyager? If it was in DW it would never be able to fix herself.


I'm not entirely understanding you - only the most basic damage control tech has no self-repair capability. Damage Control historically was also more about keeping damage from becoming catastrophic and then doing basic repairs after battle.


Ah ok, I see where you are coming from. So what you are saying is that the reduction of damage of say 20% is that damage was done, but repaired then?

quote:


quote:

1 Tactics. We need to be able to tell our ships or fleets how to behave. Just shoot at one target and then they stop and do nothing while the other enemies are getting away is no fun. Yes this game is done in Real Time, but it's not a RTS game. We should be able to say shoot at long range only. Or once an enemy is destroyed it should target another enemy that is close by.


There are two different points here. You can set tactics on the design screen. As far as ship behavior in combat, automated ships behave differently from manual control ships and we're already looking to add in some more tactical intelligence to manual control ships as it's clear that people would prefer that to having them "completely manual".


Looking forward to it.

quote:


quote:

2 Maybe something about having an option, of using less fire power, but increase defence from evasding or have ships going faster in speed. Or maybe increas firepower but defence and speed will be decreased. More fire power, but easier to hit in return for example. Like when we see in movies and shows and books, where they divert the power to shields or the engines to get more power. That would mean power is taken away from the weapons or need more power to the weapons, it takes power away from the engines making the ship less manoverable so easier to hit, but the shots have more wallop to them.


A lot of this depends on how you design your ship, whether it's got plenty of extra power or just enough. Making this a tactical micro-management decision seems to me like it's not right for the scale of this game though.


Fair enough, I guess since I have restartitis, I don't have a huge fleet to take care off, so I never realized how huge the game can be. I guess it is opening my mouth before finishing the game. [:'(]

quote:


quote:

4. Have combat mean something. Why bother attacking ships that can't move. All that does is cause me to waste more fuel. Maybe having an experiance level, if not for ships, but maybe for leaders then. We should have Captians, and Admirals. What about helms men to make the ships more faster or more manoverable so they it's harder to hit in combat. Have leaders or helmsmen that have a bonus to hit in combat, or engineers who can make the shields last long or repair the ship faster after combat or even during combat.


Helmsmen? Crewing each ship in detail again seems like we're getting game scales mixed up. Admirals with game effects I could see, some experience could also make sense.


True enough. I was sort of playing like you said in an old post of mine, controlling one ship and being the captian of it while the rest of the galaxy is playing. Just would have loved more options when playing it that way. [:D]

quote:


quote:

I just feel that the combat system is making this game a classic of what it can be. I am loving this game so much now, but feel it's just missing that little somethting.


I think that as you get into more detail, you run the risk of losing the focus of the game. It certainly does not have everything that Star Fleet Battles or Full Thrust or something like that, but tell me how those games did at creating and managing an entire empire? [;)] Nothing against adding more to ship battles, but there are a lot of areas in the game that have the potential for expansion and improvement, this is a first release that's only a couple of weeks out from the gates.

Regards,

- Erik

Fair enough. Maybe once I finally hit 20 years I will see the whole scope of the game. Man I just love playing this game. Never had as much fun playing a 4X space game like this in years.



Astorax -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 1:58:33 AM)

Davor, top left of the design screen, use the drop down menu's and choose "Standoff". I've not used an exclusive torp/missile boat as yet but I'm just going to assume that would be the default strategy for it.



mllange -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 2:12:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Astorax

Davor, top left of the design screen, use the drop down menu's and choose "Standoff". I've not used an exclusive torp/missile boat as yet but I'm just going to assume that would be the default strategy for it.


In theory I suppose. In reality, ships with "standoff" fire their missles and then continue to close to close range just like the rest of the fleet. Of course, missles only out-distance energy weapons by a fractional distance anyway so it doesn't make much difference in either event. Ship and weapons scale needs to be adjusted in a big way for combat to turn into anything but one big cluster.



Malevolence -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 3:25:59 AM)

I agree. The very general tactics selected in the design screen are great... but I can see that was created alone given the RTS perspective of the game. In many 4X games, you can set such general tactics in the design as well. They act as the default. However, when ships are added to fleets, etc. Those tactics can be modified for each ship or given to a fleet.  So while the ship design's default tactic is "weapons range", you can issue a "point blank" tactic to your fleet. That will override the design default.




Astorax -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 3:41:47 AM)

Yep, Malevolence, thats exactly how its handled in Space Empires, too. Heh, now if only we had a dropdown tactics menu for fleets...

[:D]



Malevolence -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 3:50:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Astorax

Yep, Malevolence, thats exactly how its handled in Space Empires, too. Heh, now if only we had a dropdown tactics menu for fleets...

[:D]



I know... I was big fan of Malfador back to SE2 and later. Stars! probably remains my favorite 4X. This game, however, has a different vision ...

I keep going back to this CodeForce statement to give me perspective on DW...

quote:

"Experience the full depth and detail of large turn-based strategy games, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game."


"with the simplicity and ease of real-time"

You can tell this is a core design goal. I know my personal "speed" wants greater complexity, dynamic choices, and more sandbox... not to say DW doesn't have it, but simplicity isn't in my vocabulary when it comes to 4X. In other words, we must temper our "wishes" with CodeForce's vision if our expectations are going to intersect.



HsojVvad -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 4:19:52 AM)

quote:

"Experience the full depth and detail of large turn-based strategy games, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game."


Ah I don't remember this. I guess being so storked that there was a new 4X game that I missed this. So I guess this was their intent all the time, and can't be blamed.

But there is nothing wrong in asking for more is there? [sm=innocent0001.gif]



Astorax -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 4:21:16 AM)

I've been a fan of Space Empires IV forever. This game is looking like its going to replace that niche. With Elliot and the gang squashing bugs left and right promptly, it can only get better fast.

I like complexity, too, Malevolence, but there is a limit. MoO3, anyone? Though, to be fair, that was more of a UI problem, but still. This game hits me just right in a lot of the places I like and I'm loving it more the longer I play it.

[8D]



BigWolfChris -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 4:28:32 AM)

In comparison to space empires, I personally find DW too simple
I personally love complexity, but I realize that I'm part of a dying breed, and catering to dying breeds don't pay the bills



Malevolence -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 5:08:53 AM)

MoO3, was that the last one? If it was, I personally didn't like it. That was another game that the design in concept wanted you to run it in auto mode--but you were suppose to tweak settings to guide the AI. Nice concept, but I remember it being very poorly executed.

I think the second one, Battle for Antares was very good.

About DW, one of the great design choices I think they made was the open ship/hull design concept. I think, perhaps, the DW team might be wishing they had been a little less tour de force (I'm looking at you re-supply ship), but I applaud them for breaking new ground in that area. This is a single player game, and much of the constraints of other games are based on the need for multilayer fairness. It is absolutely impossible to cheat in DW. If you build a super-weapon re-supply ship who have you cheated? I disagree (respectfully) with the design mechanics in terms of one ship per role coupled to lingering naming problems with manual upgrading, but all around very refreshing. You didn't expect me to design three destroyer variants did you? [;)]

tl;dr --> If you think about DW as an RTS game in space that lets you customize your units (with very few restrictions) and that adds some deep strategic elements -- this is an excellent product.




Fishman -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 6:17:44 AM)

Stand Off works, but the AI only pays attention to standing off from its target, and doesn't focus on avoiding anyone else. "Stronger" and "Weaker" are also somewhat unclear and subjective, especially when it comes to space monsters, who have shield-ignoring attacks. Although 1.03 is supposed to have made ships smarter about avoiding them, given that their attacks only function at melee range.

And if you build a super-weapon resupply ship, you've cheated your taxpayers, because you now have a ridiculously expensive beast of a ship that isn't actually any better at destroying opponents than a ship half its price, since it can still only be in one place at one time and can only effectively attack one opponent, generally vaporizing him instantly with weapons sufficient to put holes in small moons. I've built 1500-point Leviathan battleships, and honestly, they look a lot cooler than they actually are, and I could have gotten the same results out of the 900-point battlecruisers at far less expense, since the guns are sufficient to pretty much instantly slag any opponent I've encountered. Anything BIGGER than that is simply a grandiose extragravance and an expression of your empire's pomposity....which, honestly, is sufficient reason to do it, but it's not really any more USEFUL.



Malevolence -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 6:41:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

Anything BIGGER than that is simply a grandiose extragravance and an expression of your empire's pomposity....which, honestly, is sufficient reason to do it, but it's not really any more USEFUL.



Indeed. I don't think you get the economies of scale in DW building big ships that do it all... the way real world navies actually do (in peacetime).



Fishman -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 7:44:55 AM)

Real world navies are actually gigantic dinosaurian wastes of money. Turns out that those big expensive aircraft carriers they keep building are completely obsolete and the next time they get into a real shooting war, they're going to find out the hard way when their expensive multi-billlion-dollar carriers are sent to the bottom of the ocean by a few hundred retrofitted fishing boats and yachts with antiship missiles. Antiship missiles are disturbingly cheap and it only takes a few hits to turn your expensive multibillion carrier into an expensive scrap heap. They found this out in a wargames exercise a few years back. They weren't happy about this. The only reason those things stick around at all is because acknowledging their obsolesence and lack of relevance to modern warfare would cost thousands their jobs. The military is always ready to fight the last war. In WW2, they built these big impressive battleships...which were obsolete before the war began, and they had plenty of evidence to show this. Because of Aircraft Carriers. Now aircraft carriers are obsolete, and they're going to find this out in the next war.



HsojVvad -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 8:07:48 AM)

Don't forget, modern day aircraft carriers are not alone. There are many frigates and destroyers that surrond her. She is not alone. This is what MOO 3 tried to do in it's combat system.

I think I would appreciate combat more in DW if I knew what a range of 1000 is. If I knew what a speed of 800 is. Because of this, and I research new technology I don't see a difference in space combat with the newer techs.

So can the developers let us know what the distance of like 1000 actually is. Is 1000 a planetary scale, or system scale or Deep Space scale?



Malevolence -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 8:19:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman
... Turns out that those big expensive aircraft carriers they keep building are completely obsolete and the next time they get into a real shooting war, they're going to find out the hard way when their expensive multi-billlion-dollar carriers are sent to the bottom of the ocean by a few hundred retrofitted fishing boats and yachts with antiship missiles. ...


I don't disagree with your logic, but I note with some irony that they are in fact used in real shooting wars now and are quite useful (both militarily and diplomatically). If it was not for those gigantic aircraft carriers and their air wings those first few days in Afghanistan in October 2001 would have been far less healthy.



Malevolence -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 8:21:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Davor

Don't forget, modern day aircraft carriers are not alone. There are many frigates and destroyers that surrond her. She is not alone. This is what MOO 3 tried to do in it's combat system.

I think I would appreciate combat more in DW if I knew what a range of 1000 is. If I knew what a speed of 800 is. Because of this, and I research new technology I don't see a difference in space combat with the newer techs.

So can the developers let us know what the distance of like 1000 actually is. Is 1000 a planetary scale, or system scale or Deep Space scale?


If you think of them in terms of RTS units, the detail becomes less important. I do notice many more laser bolts and torps and things appear to die much faster.



Fishman -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 9:10:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Davor

Don't forget, modern day aircraft carriers are not alone. There are many frigates and destroyers that surrond her. She is not alone. This is what MOO 3 tried to do in it's combat system.

The frigates and destroyers are the useful ships. The carrier battlegroup as a unit is useless the moment the carrier goes down in flames, which is annoyingly easy to do when you have several hundred cheap missile launchers that attack from all sides at once.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

I don't disagree with your logic, but I note with some irony that they are in fact used in real shooting wars now and are quite useful (both militarily and diplomatically).
Those aren't real shooting wars, those are police actions. We're talking about a real shooting war against an actual country that, perhaps while not a superpower, isn't impoverished. And just because something is obsolete, it does not mean it cannot be used. There are, however, far more cost effective ways of acccomplishing the same thing which are not obsolete.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

I think I would appreciate combat more in DW if I knew what a range of 1000 is. If I knew what a speed of 800 is. Because of this, and I research new technology I don't see a difference in space combat with the newer techs.
It's a a range in Units. What the units are is unimportant because any unit chosen results in a very unrealistic picture. Using real units in a space game tends to make a very boring game.



Impact1986 -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 2:48:55 PM)

this game needs to me more moddable. i would love to mod this game and improve it in that department



BigWolfChris -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 2:58:24 PM)

The ability for a ship to use a "Multi-Targeting" component would be awesome
Even with today's technology, an advanced fighter aircraft can lock onto multiple targets at once
So why can a ship that flies through space only shoot one target at a time?
With beam weapons... maybe, depending on if they are fixed mounted, or arcing turrents
But with torpedoes, if anything like today's ones, there targeting computers are build into the actual torpedo, with maybe the ship relaying updated information



davidjruss -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 3:38:59 PM)

What I find so frustrating about space combat in DW :-

1) Every military ship seems to close an enemy vessel to point blank range no matter what the combat setting , passing on opposite parallel courses

2) After passing an enemy ship a vessel takes forever to turn about and then it is a stern chase to catch up and in most cases the opposition vessel goes to hyperdrive before it can be caught

3)The fact that in combat , time is still incrementing , so you have the scenario where space combat can take a couple of months in DW time reach a conclusion and a vessel can take days to just turn around.

It seems to me that combat in DW needs a radical overhaul as it is just too frustrating at present.

DavidR



HsojVvad -> RE: What I find lacking in Space Combat (4/12/2010 3:40:57 PM)

Not sure if you know this David, but in the design screen, if you put more vertical thrusters on a ship, it will turn faster. Of course this will make the ship slower, so you have to put on more engines to make it go faster, but then causes your ship to turn slower. You have to try and find a good mix of what you like.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.046875