Vixef

quote:Originally posted by Scratch: Why did I lose experience points? Did I kill rabbits and endagered species while destroying the Mul/Rai base? Was a diplomat destroyed while you were orbiting the planet? If that was the case, you would loose ep.

quote:Originally posted by Scratch: Secondly why should we attack Milatary bases? Well... If they are hostile, that should be reason enough to attack them.

quote:Originally posted by Darkling: quote:Originally posted by Vixef: Woha... This is the first time I wholeheartedly agree with Jaguar. Darkling, just because science cannot prove every aspect of a theory doesnÔÇÖt mean that the theory is false. Did I ever say that the theory of Evolution was false? What are you reading? What I said is that the theory of Evolution is just that. It is a Theory. Just because I said that it's not a fact doesn't mean that I said it is false. The main point that I'm trying to make here is that Evolutionists have their Theory and Creationist have their Theory. Evolutionists have facts to "support" their claims and Creationist have facts to "support" their claims, but neither side can be PROVEN correct. What about this isn't true? I wasn't going to answear you post, since there are another thread which discusses the topic. But I..., I can't resist... Have to follow my instincts... Even when it is leading me to certain doom.... Yup, you're right, you haven't said that the theory of evolution is false. My fault. But I do disagree with you when you are claiming that creationists have facts to support their claim. They have a believe and that's about it. Furhtermore, evolutionists have "evidence", and theories to support them. This makes their claims probable. And for me, that does mean that they also have more valid claims.

Woha... This is the first time I wholeheartedly agree with Jaguar. Darkling, just because science cannot prove every aspect of a theory doesnt mean that the theory is false. To say that a theory is false, youll have to prove it false. To prove it false youll have to prove it logically. As far as I know, no-one has proven the theory of evolution to be false. This does not mean that the theory is a fact, but it does mean that the theory is probable. When it comes to religion, nothing has to be logical. You just have to believe in it. No religion, as far as I know, proves anything logically. It is also very difficult to disprove a religion. If I were really far fetched, I could believe in Thor and Odin and the rest of the old Nordic gods. If you told me that the world is not flat, I would answer prove it! You would show me a picture of the planet; I would say that it doesnt prove anything - the photo is false. You would take me to space and show me the planet. And I would say it is an optical illusion, and so on. You probably get the idea, so I wont explain any further. Im not saying that you must believe in any scientific theories, but if you say a theory is false I would ask for proof because that is what science is all about.

That was a pretty cool post ouch. Never imagined that you could actually do all the stuff your describing - then again, some people say I've no imagination at all . Guess I have to pick up my BCM again to test it out.

Well... It may be about time I introduce myself.. I'm 30 years old - on Monday I'll be 31 I live in Oslo in Norway. I have girlfriend and we're expecting a baby in july. I am civil engineer, working as a project manager for a small entrepreneur company. ... and ... I am also a BC-aholic.

Have you downloaded the latest patches and installed them correctly?

quote:Originally posted by Marvin: quote:Originally posted by Vixef: It was about Norways involvment in Iraq.What happened to all that Viking spirit? Yup... Makes you wonder, doesn't it. BUT there are some of us left. For instance me. I usually play as a raider in BCM, and in real life (as if BMC isn't?) one of my favorite hobbies is raiding pubs... and a couple of times a year, I go abroad doing just that.

Sidenote: I watched a depate program yesterday. It was about Norways involvment in Iraq. Some of the politicians and journalists actually showed surprise when it was ÔÇ£revealedÔÇØ that Norwegian forces may have to engage hostile forces and was supposed to do just that (rules of engagement and all that) I mean ÔÇô we send military forces (spesial forces among them - not a lot though) and expect them not to be engaged with hostile forces? Who in their right mind would think that they wouldnÔÇÖt? Or would they expect those forces not to support allied troops?

quote:Originally posted by Kalshion: . people like you and drd are open to your opinions but you don't live here! You don't work Here! You don't get your education here! So in my opinion you have no right telling US what to do! You have no right telling us what we did right and what we did wrong during the war I'm not sure how to respond to this... Do you mean that only american citizens are allowed to discuss/critizise american foreign/internal politics, history, educational system,etc? or Do you mean that european countries have no right dictating USAÔÇÖs actions? quote:Originally posted by Kalshion: Do a little more research, and look at more statistics and ask more questions before coming here and trying to prove others wrong please, I understand I got the numbers wrong. However anyone with a brain would probably tell that I was just using that as an example 50,000 is still FAR less than 1 mill in troop/civvy casualties for japan and 1 mill in troops for US if we where to invade I did not try to prove you wrong!! I merely pointed out that there are different views on the issue - the need to use the atomic bomb in WWII. Also, if you state that aproximately 4 000 civilians died because of the atomic bomb, someone should react. If I had started a thread about this, and stated that 7.000.000 civilians died because of the atomic bombs, my guess is that you would react strongly. Also, I did not critizise USA for this action. I only stated that I wasn't sure if it was the right action to do. The reason: I do not know enough about it!!!! quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Well, it worked, we dropped a bomb, Japan thought it was the only one, we told them otherwise, gave them another warning and dropped another bomb, and they surrendered. But again, this has NOTHING to do with Iraq. I agree. This is for another thread. quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: And you guys are the ones spouting propaganda, not us, we have facts to back us up, statistics, and history. The US does not do these things lightly.Who guys? The Europeans, or me and drdespair? quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Iraq went against EVERY UN resolution, they did NOT abide by the ceasefire agreement that stopped the original gulf war, and they continued to work on WMD's. Saddam supported terrorism in all it's forms, and was training Al Quaeda in the use of WMD's. So, not only was Saddam making the UN look useless, though it is, he was also a direct threat to us via terrorism.What was most effective when it comes to stopping Iraq making WMD's? UN doing searches, or USA invading Iraq. As I understand it, USA hasnÔÇÖt actually found WMD's - I might be wrong though. When it comes to UN being useless: Before the war USA critized the UN for being ineffective and ?useless?. Now USA wants the UN to become more involved in Iraq. Have I understood this correctly? quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: We had every right to go in and take him out and then leave, just as we could have in Afghanistan.If you use the argument, that you had the right to invade Iraq, because they supported terrorists that were responsible for the attack on the world trade center, I guess you're right. In this argument USA has to have proof of course. The problem, as I understand it, is that a lot of countries disagreed that Iraq was directly responsible for the attack. Also bombing Iraq/Afghanistan back to the "stone age", and then leave (without rebuilding the country) is something I believe you have no right to do. Simply because the persons running the country were lunatics, and the rest of the population cannot be held responsible for their actions in the same way as in a democratic country. quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Too bad that the Europeans feel that the Iraqi's are somehow inferior and won't be able to do it.That is not my view and I don't think that's the general view by Europeans. A lot of European countries and Europeans support USA's actions: GB, Norway, Denmark, etc. I think most countries agree that Iraq should have a democracy. I thought the discussion was more in the lines of when and how. As I understand drdespair, he pointed out that a country with a lot of internal conflicts and no tradition for democracy will often have serious problems in becoming democratic (as a lot/most of western countries has had). Sometimes/often it will result in bloody conflicts, and sometimes the form of the democracy is nowhere near western standards. Meaning: Iraq will have a deomracy as long as USA is in the country, but as soon as USA leaves, there may be huge problems ÔÇô even civil war. The solution to this ÔÇ£problem-solvingÔÇØ may not be a ÔÇ£western democracyÔÇØ. As an end to my tirade and longest post ever... My statements/arguments are not meant as personal attacks and should not be replied to as if they are. I reply to this thread for two reasons: 1. I reacted on the way you two, Jaguar and Kalshion, responded to dr.despair's posts 2. I want to get a broader picture as to how other people think and understands political situations. My intention is not to teach you or anyone else as to how the world revolves, why the sun shines, etc. My intention is solely egoistic: I donÔÇÖt really care if you learn anything from what I write or change your mind from your point of view to mine. I do on the other hand care about learning other peopleÔÇÖs thoughts and ideas.

quote:Originally posted by Kalshion: If we had invaded Japan, we would've lost over a mill troops in just the first few hours of fighting. That was beleaved to be unacceptable and I agree. Also, Japan would've lost over a mill in troops AND Civvys combined if we would've invaded. The US took it upon themselves to make sure that neither side would lose that much. And you know what? neither side reached the one mill casultie rate. Japan lost, if I remember correctly, over 4,000 in civvys, I could be wrong. Buts better than lossing over a Mill in civvys and a Mill in troops We warned Japan to surrender and they didn't. So you know what? We bombed one of there citys, do I find it right to attack a civvy target. No I don't but thats in the past now nothing can be done to fix it And even after the first bomb, they STILL refused to surrender. So we did it again, in total my friend the civvy casualtie rate was a lot lower than the estimated troop casultie rate if we would've sent our boys in instead of bombing There are a lot of different opinions about need to use atomic bombs in WWII. For instance this: http://www.doug-long.com/ When it comes to casualties.... phew... A LOT of civilians were killed. Read http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/boo...aki/chap11.html and http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hiroshima1.html As for me, I haven't made up my mind wether USA had to drop the bomb or not. You guys, Jaguar and Kalshion, were the ones bashing drdespair. Not the other way around. What, as I understand it, drdespair pointed out was that he did not believe the total end result of the war would change the situation in Iraq to the better. He critizised USA's actions not americans. If you guys write propaganda for the war, you have to expect different opinions.

Couldn't be said better than this: quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: SC, it's ready when it's ready, and you don't think it's ready. So stop the presses and keep on programming until you think it is. Personally I don't have the time to play games as much as I used to. Therefore it's more important for me to have games that are as bug free as possible. I don't want to download a patch every time I have the time to play. From a financial view, my best guess is that time is money (as in my own line of work). Meaning: 1. You have to deliver the product within the time limit no matter how many faults with the product. The reason being of course that the concequenses are too big if you don't. But as you said yourself, the product is yours to do with as you want - a least with regards to time limits. 2. The longer you use to produce, the more it costs (simplified). If you won't get paid for the extended production time(either by selling more or turning the price up per unit), you should just "finnish" the game with all the faults the game has. But as you said youself, you have to think about the future of your company as well - maybe you'll end up with a lot of unhappy customers that won't buy your future games. 3. I'm sure there are more, but I'm starting to rant so I'll stop. Considering both aspects (my personal and the financial) I think it would be best to wait with the release until the game is ready.

I played Daggerfall (the second game in the series) a lot when it came out. What I loved about it was of course that it was open ended, had a huge game world, you could play as whatever you wanted, the character development was according to what skills you used the most, and it had a mission generator. What I really hated about it, was that the dungeons were randomized. If you went into the same dungeon twice, it would be different. Anticipating the same gaming experience from Morrowind, I couldn't wait to get my hand on it. Morrowind had almost everything Daggerfall had (but with better graphics and sound of course): great immerson factor, great character development (same as in Daggerfall), quite big gaming world, BUT it didn't have a mission generator. For me that meant a more dead world than in Daggerfall. This resulted in me playing it for quite a while, but not nearly as long as I played Daggerfall. That being said, I've never regret buying the game. In fact I own the game both for X-box and PC.

quote:Originally posted by Cruis.In: when you said "you" you should say they. Im not even american. I noticed it was a tiiiiiny bit misplaced, but it was too late to edit the post. Sorry about that.

quote:Originally posted by Cruis.In: saddam seems to be more successful than some think or know. he has succeeded in driving a wedge between NATO countries. and the united nations... where is the french people that remember that it was the allies, Britain and America that liberated them...how easy people forget their friends. Well... Saying stuff like that helps too. USA and GB wasn't the sole reason for the liberation of Europe. How about a small country called USSR. Don't get me wrong... Europe has a lot to thank USA for, but that does not mean we have to support every decition you make.

I allways cloak before i jump to an enemy station. But I read in some thread that you can capture it, if you find its blindspot - an attack vector where the stations PTA-system can't reach your CC. I've never taken the time to find any, so I never attack an enemy station unless my CC is a Battlecruiser or bigger.

The space-games I've enjoyed the most (except for the BC-series) are: Elite: Great game for its time. Final Frontier (Elite II): Enjoyed it a lot. Especially since my version (Amiga) had a cool bug wich you could use to jump several 100 million Light years in one jump. Final Frontier - First Encounter (Elite III): Great game, but too many bugs. Hardwar: Very good The reason why I liked them so much? No story - only me and my imagination Seriously, what I think makes the BC-series so great, is that you are not forced into a story and you can do whatever you want. Very few games have that, and especially new games.

Have you tried this: 1. Go to tacops 2. Zoom to planet where the drones are located 3. Observe planet 4. Zoom to support units -> mining drones should show up. For this to work either your CC have to be in the same region as your mining drones or... if your AE is flying the shuttle, the shuttle has to be in orbit around the planet your mining drones are located.

To give orders to marines: 1. Go to tacops 2. Zoom to planet 3. Observe planet 4. Zoom to your marines 5. To give orders to one marine, click on him, and a menu with orders should show up. Click on SEAD or SAD. If you don't want to zoom close up on the marine, use the shift-key. Also, you can only order one marine at a time. Hope that helps a bit.

quote:Originally posted by APOLLO: Pre-ordered mine too from Gamestop. It costed $74.98 total because I live in Greece and International Economy was the only shipping method available for me... Have you checked with http://shop.game.net/ ?

quote: my question was can the AE repair the shuttle or if a SE is on board can he repair the shuttle without going back to the ship or starbase? That question has been answeared. Read my post. quote: why are than the spare parts than on board the shuttle, I did not put then in the shuttle cargo bay. If your shuttles are docked to your CC and you have intruders on board, the intruders will often fill your shuttles with cargo from the CC.

quote:Originally posted by Adamastor: im also interested in buying UC, but since i dont have any of the previous games i dont have access to any manual. i would however like to hear the answers to a couple of those questions so if its not too much trouble could someone answer a few? 1. It is possible to download a demo of BCM (at least there is a link to a mirror site) in the download section. 2. Almost all your questions are about UC, and therefore impossible to answer for 99% of the forum members. 3. Read Pugwash, Cruis.In and Epsilon 5 posts one more time.

quote:- For newbies is there a site where we can find some info about the variuos careers and assets that have been a standard since the previous BattleCrusier Games? [/QB]Try the "Battlecruiser Webring Links" at the bottom of http://www.3000ad.com/home.shtml Also if you own BCM(G) read the appendix.

Not to be rude or anything.... Why not.... wait for the demo, and find out for yourself? Or better do some research... Read interviews or reviews... Questions like: quote: Can you compare it to another game title so I can get a better idea of what ÔÇ£realisticÔÇØ means here? Is it going to be drastically different to previous BC games, or basically the same? ...is impossible to answear. For instance: I like the space flight/combat system in BCM(G)as it is. Someone else might not like it. I find WC-spaceflight not realistic, but think Elite II has realistic spaceflight - but non the less, I did like WC. Anyways... If SC thinks spaceflight/-combat works as it is, it probably won't be changed. Most importantly... If you like BC/BCM(G), you'll probably go when you try UC. If you're unsure, wait for the demo.