Zane_Marlowe

Hi friends, This post is going into its own thread because I'm anticipating that it will require a discussion of its own. It seems to me that while there are plenty of commanders who are interested in multiplayer, there is very little in the way of scoring, winning, or losing that we have at present set up. While UC has its own play style (namely, SURVIVE!) that may not lend itself to the sorts of fragfest scoring that we see in FPS games, it strikes me that people still want something to measure wins and losses, and how much better would that be if it actually counted beyond the MP session in question. My solution to this perceived need is a map-based double-blind tournament system that requires fleet commanders to handle intelligence, logistics, and engagements in order to complete their objectives in the tournament. Allow me to briefly outline. On the Single-player map we have many systems, and each is owned by a particular race. Unofficially, I propose to make the ownership of the systems on that map dynamic according to fleet wins/losses. Fleet commanders will position their fleets one jump at a time on the single-player map in "strategic turns" that alternate between all playing races. Fleet commanders may, during their turn choose to: [*]Move [*]Engage [*]Resupply [*]Recon Movement means positioning your fleet in an adjacent system unoccupied by an enemy fleet. Engagements are either directed at planets in systems unoccupied by an enemy fleet, or at fleets in adjacent systems (as a move/engage combination order). Resupply means that a commander's fleet remains stationary and restores its logistics pool for that strategic turn. (This will be necessary if you have fought a tough campaign and need to lick your wounds.) Fleets indicate where they wish to move, and a designated "map officer" (a 3rd party) maintains the map information, which includes the locations of all fleets and the ownership of all systems. Fleet commanders will have reconnaisance that includes only adjacent systems. (I am considering rules to extend this range, including intelligence and recon strategic orders, but playtesting will iron this out.) Logistics I have not outlined beyond the idea that each side has a logistics pool that consists of a certain number of points that commanders may use for resupply and reinforcements. During strategic resupply turns a fleet commander gains logistics points, and during battles he commits/loses them. A smart commander is not necessarily going to commit his whole logistics pool to a fight because he knows that the enemy may be breathing down his neck on the next turn, and will conserve resources for an anticipated defense. When fleets engage one another there are three basic steps. [*]Intelligence Gathering [*]Commit Assets [*]Begin Campaign Intelligence gathering is when CIOPS and its counterparts in the other fleets get their due. Intelligence agents must secretly generate intelligence by doing special intelligence missions on a specified 3000AD server within a scheduled window of time (an hour one evening for instance). The objectives of the mission will be generated by the person maintaining the galaxy map information, but would include things objectives such as dropping supplies on a given planet, overflying a planetary base, entering a system and counting the assets there, or other missions to be determined. At some point during that window of time (window not to exceed 1 hour), the intelligence agent must logon to the game server and perform the mission in an UNARMED transport of their choosing, using any alias and race/caste affiliation they choose. Enemy fleets will of course be looking for this agent, and if they kill him, then the intelligence mission fails and the intelligence agent's fleet will not have the advantages afforded by the intelligence operations. Successful intelligence operations allow a commander to do one of the following prior to commiting assets and engaging the enemy: [*]Reveal enemy Asset Commitments [*]Reserve fleet assets until later in the campaign [*]other advantages TBA Revealing enemy assets means that the enemy commander's asset commitment is known to the intelligence-supplied fleet commander. In case both are supplied, then each gets to look at the other's initial commitment and then revise their commitment secretly. Reserved assets can be committed at any battle in the following campaign, and if not used, are available during the following strategic turn when committed assets would normally be undergoing repair and resupply and be therefore unavailable. Committing assets is when the fleet commander must choose how many ships to commit to the taking of a system. As noted above, fleet commanders will have to balance strategic map needs with the needs of the coming engagement. Fleet commanders will have to make their commitments without seeing the commitments of their enemies (unless of course they have intelligence data as noted above). Fleet Commandes have a logistics pool of points that represents the total strength of their flet and can be used to "buy" CC's for the campaign to come. The actual engagement begins after both sides have reported their asset commitments to the map officer. The engaging fleets will then follow a battleflow diagram illustrated here. The fleet that owns the system is considered the "defending fleet" and their victories follow the "D" arrows on the diagram. The fleet that is attempting to take the system is the "attacking fleet" and follows the "A" arrows on the diagram. The diagram represents the dynamic changing of initiative in the campaign as each side wins or loses a scheduled battle on a designated 3000AD UC Server. Each battle includes the complete allowance of assets committed from the logistics pool to the campaign. Wins and losses are established by sending the map officer a transcript of the server log so he can tally up the kills for each fleet. Matches last one hour once deployment has finished (see below for deployment rules per scenario) Brief descriptions of the scenarios on the diagram are as follows: The meeting engagement is the first encounter of the two fleets and represents the opening foray that will determine the actions to follow. When teams login to the MP server, they will each begin in their home system and spread out to do battle on the MP map accordingly. If the attacker wins, then they be in a force projection situation that means that they will fight another battle where they can deploy their CC's in any systems but the defender's home system before the battle begins. If the attacker wins the force projection battle, then they will attempt planetfall. Simply put, this is the defender's last chance to hold off the attack, and the attacker must take either a planetside base or a space station with their fleet. (Gameplay will establish an appropriate final objective for the attacker, I'm open to suggestions, but they should be some kind of base or city.) In this battle, the attackers can deploy in the defender's home system, but they cannot hyperjump away from the entry points to the system (the jumpgates, wormholes, fluxfields, etc.). The defenders on the other hand must setup in their home system in orbit around their home planet. If the attacker fails in the meeting engagement, then the defender is in a force containment situation where they have isolated and contained the attacking fleet and can then attempt to dismantling it. The defender may then position his CC's in any system he desires prior to the battle's beginning except for the attacker's home system. The Attacker is limited to deploying in his home system. If the defender wins the force containment scenario, then they are in a pursuit phase where the attack has fallen apart and the defending fleet commander is attempting to rout or destroy the attacking force completely. In this case, the attacking fleet (who is now on the ropes) deploys right at the jump gate to their home system. The defender may deploy their fleet anywhere but at that jump gate, or at the jumpgate's outlet. If the attacker's choose to withdraw from the campaign, their exit is right there and they will cede the campaign to the defender. If the attacking fleet makes a go of it, then they will have to destroy the defending fleet's assets in that system. Respawning defenders may not reenter the attacking fleet's home system, but the attacking fleet has no respawns, and must do the job with only what they have at hand. If the attacking fleet withdraws or the defending fleet eliminates them, then the defending fleet has defended the system. The counterattack scenario represents a turning point in the campaign where one side recovers the initiative in the campaign and can attempt to "get back on its game." I think you can follow the arrows and see how that works. Whew, if you've read this far, then I congratulate you. This sounds more complex than it is, and I'm sure it could be automated down the road (in fact, that's my project at present). Let me know if you have any questions, clarifications, critiques, etc. Let the battle for the galaxy begin! ZM out.

Present and accounted for. Zm out.

Can I say it first? W H E W !!! Glad to have you back Remo! We were getting a little worried for you around here what with your recent health issues! Glad to see that you can't keep a good man down. ZM out.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: My only thought, as I pulled down the lever about to be sucked into space was ....Dear Lord, don't let me get my hands on Resnig when I get back. And my ship had better be intact. For his sakes. ROFLMAO That is the funniest thing I've heard in a while! I'm curious though, I haven't seen a way to turn this little trick around. Is there a way to target enemy ships for boarding parties of our own marines? And what's transporter range for those enemy ships too? I had hoped that enemies had to get near me to beam marines over, but I think I was mistaken because unless they came from planetside I had boarders on one occasion where nobody was nearby. By the time I finished that little adventure I had lost one shuttle (didn't make it to power allocation in time), but those other enemy marines PAID WITH THEIR LIVES!!! (Sound a little worked up about it still?) Well anyway, that's enough spew for now. ZM out

Drop me a line soon, I pm'd you with my email. We should talk. ZM out.

Let me ask something related (to this thread I believe) since I've read the data. Each race has a degree of technological superiority / development, and has in its description the kind of general aggression or political affiliation it has. Are these things quantified in the game or is this just background fluff? We all seem to have access to the same assets (with the exception of the Stormcarrier the Gams have), so is there any advantage to choosing one race over another? Does one race get access to upgrades faster, or have more efficient research officers? (That would seem strange since the ship crew is the same no matter what the AE's race is.) I'm curious about this too. ZM out.

Hello? Is ISS still here? Aren't you guys supposed to be the intelligence and special ops section? You guys are either on DEEP cover, or need a little poke from an interested party (that's me ) What's up?

Hey Prime Fleet members, Since our boards are down I haven't been able to see who I'm supposed to mail the latest completed training assignment to. Who's currently looking at these assignments? ZM out.

I'll thank you to spare your pity, it seems that we've both said what was important for us to say. For my part, I've invited you to engage in the kind of discussion you claimed to be representing to this audience, that is, the academic discussion of the New Testament and the first century AD (or CE if you prefer). You've not produced anything like the kind of discussion available in higher education. Instead you've given us personal experiences which, though I have no doubt that they form a reasonable basis for your beliefs, are unfortunately not portable for the rest of us. You say the facts are there to be found if I bother looking. Well, I have looked. There's not one thing you've said about the first century or early Christianity that hasn't been examined in minute detail by current scholarship, both critical and religious, and you have shown absolutely no awareness of it. To the contrary, you've defined them all in one broad stroke (even the critical articles) as CYA. I've produced scholarly sources by those who have done more than you have, studied more than you have, read more than you have, but somehow these people's writings pale next to your somehow superior wisdom. You say you've been there and I've only studied, but I answer that even having been there, you've apparently learned only what you desired to see. If our subject is Christianity, the messenger IS the message as John's Gospel so famously opened, quote:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Jesus' message was that he was the one whom the scriptures spoke of, and that he was the fullest expression of their truths. As far as the future is concerned, it is John again who gives Christianity its future perspective in the New Testament's closing book, Revelation. Having described the final reckoning of evil and the recreation of the world, John's closing words are not so ominous as yours. The Bible's final sentences read, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. The Grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen." John is hopeful and confident, just as I am, just as many Christians are, and rightfully so, for that is the historic orthodoxy of Christianity. If those are not your beliefs, then I'll hazard that your beliefs are not Christian or not orthodox, and I'll not trouble you beyond those distinctions since we are not here to convert one another. My purpose was to correct our readers' perception of the view of modern scholarship that I felt you were misrepresenting. The quality of your answers has satisfied that purpose, thank you for your dialogue. ZM out.

quote:jaguar Wrote: First off it is NOT my duty to do anything.To the extent that you wish us to listen to you, you have a duty to back up what you say, or was it not you who said "show me"? By the way, it's interesting that your "he who has eyes to see" mentality has completely eclipsed the "ALL scholars agree" sorts of statements. Apparently now we're supposed to believe your "facts" on the basis of your saying so rather than any kind of serious and genuine scholarship on the issue. quote:Jaguar Wrote: You believe what you are able and capable and what is best for you to believe at this point in time, and I know for a fact that I am NOT going to change it no matter what I say.You've not yet asked me what I believe, and if you'll note previous posts, while defending Christianity I have not named myself Christian. Were I to do so, you would have little advanced your knowledge of my beliefs without a detailed discussion of my views on theology, church history, biblical authority, etc. Additionally, I have not tried to convince you not to believe what you believe, I have simply asked you to abandon your "informing" Christians about the "historical facts" of their faith because your knowledge of them is clearly questionable (at the very least) and you are therefore doing them no real service. Now if you believe that you have some stake in the beliefs of Christians, then the only qualifying reason is because you are part of that community of people and their beliefs are therefore yours in some sense as well. Except that if that's so, then the veracity of your beliefs can be measured publically the same as everyone else's (although you'll note that I have not asked you to produce your beliefs, only your "facts"). What's it going to be Jag? Are you going to tell us where you got your "facts," why you switched from "ALL scholars agree" to "you believe what you need to believe/the time is coming...", and why you are so cagey about your belief system when you feel so free to do an undesired "service" to the belief systems of others? Somehow I doubt it. ZM out.

More facts? Produce them. If they are facts, then you have as much of a duty to share them with us as we apparently have a duty to consider them as seriously as you suggest we should. Your travels in France, Italy, and even Israel do not alter the fact that facts themselves are public and open to inspection. Perhaps you mean to tell us that your "facts" are hidden in those places and cannot be presented to the public for its inspection. What basis could we then have for believing your apocalypic implications except that you yourself seem to believe them? Your religion, whatever it is, is deeply held by you, and you have the Christian at a disadvantage in conversation not because your view is superior (as you seem to think but have failed to actually show) but because you haven't actually explained and defended it. My point someone to poking your views was not to suggest that I would or wanted to, but rather to say that it is pretty unethical of you to go around poking other people's beliefs because you think it's interesting when to them it represents some of their most deeply felt intuitions about the most fundamental and important aspects of reality. Whether you agree or disagree with organized religion, and whether you do or do not publish your view, that's not something you should be doing callously. ZM out.

Hey Zwycky, good links, I'm waiting for Jaguar to read and comment, but for those who don't want the extended discussion, let me summarize since I've also been to seminary. quote:Jaguar wrote: The bible has NONE of these thinga[sic], as a matter of fact there is MORE evidence refuting the stories in the bible, then there is to back it up.Citation please Jaguar? You say you've studied this, well I have too. You want the full discussion, then lay out your sources and do it like a professional does it. If you just read a couple of books that have "the stuff they don't want you to know," then it's old news with a new hat and the discussion has not been advanced. quote:Jaguar wrote: The bible was put together in the 4th century, the books that were put in were those that agreed with the men that put it together, all other books that were considered were added to a ban and destroy list. The gnostic gospels being one, the gospel of Thomas being another.The Bible was put together in the 4th century, but the 66 books that compose it (27 NT books and the 39 books of the Jewish scriptures that had already been canonized by the Jews themselves during the intertestamental period) were authored earlier. Of the books of the NT, internal evidence suggests that they were all written during the 1st century, within the lifetime of the writers and their Jewish critics. The Gnostic gospels (of which the Gospel of Thomas is one) are later writings (3rd 4th century) whose style is so clearly not that of the four canonical gospels that no one seriously supports their inclusion. However, if you choose to support their inclusion, can you explain what Jesus meant in this passage from the Gospel of Thomas? quote:The gospel of Thomas (par. 114) Simon Peter said to them: "Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said: "Lo, I shall lead her, so that I may make her a male, that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself a male will enter the kingdom of heaven."Critical scholars agree that early Christianity had a better place for women in the social order than the Roman or Jewish cultures did. Why would that be if Peter and Jesus thought that women had to somehow become men in order to attain entry to the kingdom of heaven? The Gospel of Thomas has more to do with a perverted version of Greek Dualism that made Spirit and men more valuable, and women and the body (for their sexual connections) less valuable. Those value judgments are nowhere in the four canonical gospels. But I keep forgetting, you're not religious! Now I'm not sure why you even care what's in the canon, but as long as you're debating, then let's have it on record that the books you say were arbitrarily excluded were in fact neo-platonic fictions whose accounts of Jesus' life resembled nothing like the Jewish carpenter that even the atheist scholars affirm the historical details of. quote:Jaguar wrote: Biblical historians ALL agree that the 4 testaments were written either 2 or 3rd, or possibly even 4th hand, the names that are on them, were not written by those men. The historical validity of most if not ALL of the events are questionable in the extreme, being that most of them have NO historical veracity at all.I think you mean 4 gospels, not four testaments. There are, in point of fact, only two testaments in the Christian Bible--Old and New. Where's your citation that "ALL" historians agree that the gospels were written in the 3rd and 4th centuries? I'll save you the trip to the library, that's false in point of fact (as many "ALL" statements are) because internal evidence in the texts dates their original composition to the 1st century. On that point critical scholars agree, although believers and critics disagree on whether they were composed prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Also, it's a rule of textual criticism that if a person writes that they are the author of a document (Luke for instance), then unless you've got reason to believe they're lying to you, then you should take them at their word. That's also true of other historical details (such as who was ruling, what the laws said, etc.) that the author has no reason to lie about. quote:Jaguar wrote: Some of the customs of the Romans for instance were outright made up. Everyone traveling to their hometowns for the census, never happened, Herod's killing of the children, never happened, Jesus being a criminal and the Jews choosing between him and Barabus, NEVER happened, I could go on and on and on, but I have to go to work this morning, so maybe I will get you more later. The census of the population and their property was ordered by Octavian, known as Augustus Caesar, in order to consolidate the empire and determine the basis for recruiting the army and for taxation. This is not historically argued over by critical historians, so I'm not sure why you are. The murder of innocent children in Bethlehem is not a big deal when you remember that the town would only be large enough to support a population whose infant male children would have numbered no more than ten or twenty. If history is silent on this point it's because it was a relatively minor footnote. Is Herod the Great that kind of guy? Oh yeah, he executed members of his own family in the final years of his life because he was so paranoid about his children overthrowing him for succession. Killing a dozen or so infants in an out of the way Galilean town? Not a big deal for this Idumean who had parleyed his way into Jewish Kingship. The next statements of your last post rehash, so I'll not treat them again. quote:Jaguar wrote: The bible is Full of questionable and outright false information, therefore I can place no faith in it. It was a book created by man, for a manly purpose, power over people. It is not god inspired as far as I am concerned, or the book would be put together far better then it is. If God is truly omnipotent, the book would make a lot more sense, and would not get caught in outright lies. Just my opinion, based on true historical facts.Unless you can show me some kind of mainstream texts on historiography, new testament studies, and ancient history, then I'm going to assume that you are full of questionable and outright false information. (I'll take a critical scholar over a believer as long as it's from a respected university, say Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, or heck, a professor from my alma mater at the UW there near you in Gig Harbor--the critical stuff I learned mostly from them anyway.) If I'm wrong, then show us all your facts, and we will assess for ourselves the "true historicity" of your opinions. Now I'm going to lay my cards on the table. First, my sources: Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. 1994. Geisler, Norman L. and William Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible 1986. Tenney, Merrill C. New Testament Survey 1985. For critical sources, see Jewish scholars, one of whom in a book I recently read said, "we know more about Jesus than we do about any other 1st century Jew." As far as your overall thought about Paganism being included in Christianity, the reason that those occasions were setup in church history was so that Christians wouldn't be attracted to festivals in which they would be tempted to return to their pre-Christian beliefs and practices. It was a kind of alternative practice that would undermind syncretistic practices that were so prevalent in a period of history when belief in the gods was more like paying taxes then assembling a worldview. Multiplying gods was no big deal, but Judaism and Christianity were credal systems that denied the inclusion of other gods. That's one of a few reasons why alternative or transmuted pagan festivals were practiced in early Christianity. There are others, but that's sufficient I think. Okay, bottom line: If you want to poke at people's beehives, then choose a different topic than one which touches the most deeply felt intuitions about the most fundamental realities in the universe. If I had your beliefs laid out before me and started showing YOU how YOUR most centrally held beliefs were not what you thought they were, it would be pretty rude. Religion is not, as you say, about money and control. It is a universal part of human experience that manifests itself in every culture we have ever heard of, and continues to this day in nine out of the ten people you meet, eight of whom are Christian (according to The First Measured Century, published in 2000). Religion is, at the very least, a human response to what is perceived to whatever is the most fundamental metaphysical fact of our existence. That's what I teach your kids when I teach Religion in the secular college where I work. Religion as a social institution has its ups and downs, and you should remember that religion has fed orphans, built hospitals for the sick, and clothed the poor more often then it's ever raised the sword. (In fact, atheism has claimed more lives in the 20th century than Christianity has in its history, see the Black Book of Communism, published in France in 1997.) I'll grant that many Christians today haven't done the research into their beliefs, but that doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they haven't thought through all their beliefs yet. Have you thought through all of yours? Be careful how you answer, I wouldn't want someone else to come along and poke at your beliefs the way you've poked at these. ZM out. [ 05-03-2004, 03:43 AM: Message edited by: Zane Marlowe ]

It also occurs to me that if you DO have an inverted OC or drone, then you might just have the shuttle extract and redeploy as a temporary fix, although from what I understand it seems that they may just get into that trouble again later.

quote:Supreme Cmdr wrote: To see some more shots (I just released 29 more) from this upcoming patch, go here.Agh! It's KILLING me!!! (wrings hands impatiently) I'm just going to sit here and stew in my impatience. I'm sure there are others who would take the exact opposite view, but the more I see, the more impatient I get for the thing that whenever anyone asks when it's going to be ready the stock reply is, "when it's ready." I respect the stock reply, but do ya have ta make it look so darn good when we can't get hold of it yet? Between the VCF and the screenshots I'm gonna go nuts! ZM out... ...of his mind!

Okay friends, here it is. I had some questions of a substantive nature about the political and strategic aims of some of GALCOM's political enemies. Specifically I was wondering this: [*]What exactly is the nature of the conflict between GALCOM and the Gammulans. Having read the docs from the UC appendix, they appear to be in some kind of cold war. Is that it? Is there some historical parallel I can use to make sense of this when I put together RP? [*]The Insurgency originally wanted a decentralized government on Earth. Now this was before first contact. I'm trying to figure out why the Insurgency is still trying to work over GALCOM since the universe got bigger. Isn't there such a thing as a common cause? [*]GALCOM's battle against the Insurgency cannot, if the number of insurgent bases on EVERY GALCOM planet is an indicator, be a "thorn in GALCOM's side." This has got to be nothing less than a big time civil war, right? Well, those are some of my questions. There are more, but I'm interested in writing some good stories for this setting, and I wanted to be able to more richly describe the powers that be. Thanks again, ZM out.

Hey, I'm a big multiplayer nut, let's get online on the HOXDNA server, I've got an excellent ping. The fact is that we just need to arrange a time to make it happen, and if one server isn't getting regular attendance, it's not like opening four more is going to suddenly solve that problem. The community (especially Prime Fleet as I've seen first hand) is working REALLY hard to make this released-before-it-was-ready game into a stable, fully developed, honed and refined game that represents the best this product can be. I'm a newcomers to this community and I have to say that both the community and the dev team have really won my respect. When I read the thing that went down with DC in the early days of release, and I read that the back end support wouldn't be there because the money wouldn't either, it made complete sense to me and the degree of support we've gotten to date astounds me. I know nothing of the settlement between the two companies, but on the worst case scenario that there were still no back end financing for support, SC and his team still care enough about the game and the community of people who are loyal to it that they are supporting this out of pocket. That is unheard of in big business, and this is one of the benefits of an independent developer. Okay, so when do you want to play? Sound off everyone, because after all we want lots of excellent complex fleet battles, and me and my Prime Fleet buddies don't feel very right about destroying each other. So who wants to play multiplayer on HOXDNA and when can you make it? ZM out.

quote:Originally posted by UltraMage I took your advice and asked a Gammulan Military Warmonger where I could find massive fleet battles in which I could use my fresh stock missiles, and he responded by teleporting 10( ) intruders on board my ship, all of which barricaded the Deck 1 Fore Corridor so that all of my marines got stuck up there (they were ALL trying to intrude on the Gammulan ships using the transporters, believe it or not), and then proceeded straight to my Weapons Pod to set off all of my new Vagrant missiles. This was all only minutes after I had asked a Gammulan Military Solnar where I could find the aforementioned battles involving missiles, which responded by boarding me with eight intruders that took out my tractor beam and stuffed half my CC and the kitchen sink into SC1.LOL! Man, is there anything those guys DIDN'T do to you? ZM

I'll echo that. HOXDNA has been where I've found a lot of helpful information from other players. Thanks again! ZM

Of course! Now I'm a new at this, so how does one do anything that's NOT in RP? I haven't seen servers for UC yet, do you guys do stories in BCMG multiplayer? ZM

You know, I think ISS would have one of the most interesting fleets in the game since it's got the intelligence and covert ops elements. Intel and Covert ops owns the night, and space has a lotta night!

Hmm, alright, well here's what occurs to me. First, I apparently misunderstood your first post because imagined something a little different than I think you first meant, but let me summarize briefly since it might have merit anyway and I promise I'll be brief. Vanquish type 1 - Cap ships included (yes, it would cause mayhem, but I'd still like to see it, unless you mean software mayhem), multiple scenes (by which I take it you mean the space/planet region connected by jump points, wormholes, etc.), and a single spawn point in space and a single one on the planet. When both are captured, that system falls and you move to the next one. You can't spawn out of that system until you capture both. Go from scene to scene until you get all the way to their homeworld. If I understood your technical summary, this is possible isn't it? Thoughts on Vanquish type 2 - This is a single scene game that includes both space and planetary points. I think one of the things you'd really want to do is set the planetary spawn points on different ends of the planet, because that forces the aggressor into space for transit, which means they would be vulnerable to the battle in space. You might have just one spawn point in space because that would give only one side the advantage of air superiority since they have a way to stay up there while their opponent has to come up from the ground. That single spawn point would be hotly contested in order to assure safe passage to and from each base for each team. If there were six such scattered bases, then the space spawn point would be very important while the main objective of the game is being pursued on the ground. First thoughts... ZM

quote:Originally Posted by Supreme Commander: If a station (which it won't be, since nowhere did I say anything about station capture) is flagged as being the capture target, then obviously that scenario won't be for planet bound players.Good point. I was thinking more about this... If the approaches to the spawn points are fairly linear, then capturing spawn points could create a kind of battle line that can move back and forth with the battle. If spawn points were planet-bound, one per planet, then because the transit options to the systems (jump point, flux field, etc.) are fairly linear and have their own chokepoints and strategic areas, the systems themselves would be taken with the planetary objective since the spawn point's former owners wouldn't be able to spawn in-system until they'd captured it back. In that case, systems themselves are the object of capture, and you win by taking the last spawn point on the enemy's homeworld. I think the goal of "Vanquishing" the enemy's homeworld capital city has an appropriate scope that keeps with the scope of the rest of this game. ZM

What if this conquest mode idea required you to capture a space station or city on the other guy's homeworld? That would require lots of effort to get all the way there, and it's a winner take all proposition. I'm quite new by the way, so I haven't tried to capture a station in the regular game and therefore don't know if this is relatively easy or hard. However, the idea of capturing some feature that requires defending because it doesn't really fight back as much (as a station might) is the gist here. You could place whatever that thing might be in either the enemy's homeworld, or in each enemy system and make it a scoring match. There's my $.02 Ben

Many Happy Returns $ilk, she's a looker alright.

Just a question about sig images from a new player: If the only approved images are fleet affiliations, and the only fleets are those approved through normal channels, then what do we do if we're not fleet affiliated because we're not military in career? If I were a trader, and explorer, police, or some other such, could I not have an image because I wasn't fleet affiliated? I respect wanting to make sure people don't make these images into utter foolishness, but as stated, the rules mean that it's not possible for unaffiliated individuals to use an image in their sig. Is that the way it's supposed to be? Ben