FreeOrion

Thats another part I didn't like about Moo 3 is that constant ratio. It makes deep space combat during mid games nearly impossible, and very difficult even in the late game. The shortest path between star in Moo3 nearly invariably going through starlanes, but then all the stars were connect and FO we can a choice so it's not as bad I guess.

In the example, the ratio I see is 2:1. This is a problem, imo, becuase it makes starlane in the early game where it is the most important, ineffectual. But if you make the ratio too high, like Moo 3's 7, starlane is the only way to travel.

@ablaze
Some game sense: most games have tech level up to 99 with critcal mass at 50-60, so tech 40 is mid-late game. I can bet you that 35 level won't something trivial like chemical rockets.

starlane aren't disabled, they are less effective--big difference. Using constant allows starlane to be effective early when they matter the most and not as a big deal latter when advance military tactics can be deployed like multi-front assault rather then banging on your front gate where all your defenses are like an idiot.

Ahhh! galaxy generation is locked!

If it's not too late, plz make starlanes Ax+B and not strictly ratio Ax. And second, plz don't make every stars connected through with starlanes. I rather see starland more like specials rather than norm.

Starlanes should be thought of as like highways (star gates at each entry point) between star systems, like Free Lancer. And you should be able to upgrade them, so you can travel faster through them.

Offroad should be where pirates lerk, unexplored mysteries, I don't know what.

umm.. utilae, did you read my other posts on how ratio starlane affects gameplay? I know the concept of starlanes. I just have reservations on how it will work. I'm sure you can even upgrade to wormhole, but read my other posts!

skdiw, deepspace-combat is not passed, and I really doubt that it will get passed. About your ratio-doubt: a constant is just fine, wheres your problem? e.g.

ORT: 2 turns distance * 6(constant multiplier) * 0.5 (tech boni) = 6 turns.
ORT: 2 turns distance * 6(constant multiplier) * 0.3 (we have developed a bit) = 4 turns.

Sure, Starlanes will always be faster than offroad, but a freeway will always be faster than a country road (except you get caught up in a traffic jam ... . ).

uhh... I am having hard time understanding you Odi. I really like FO, but I like FO(except if it sucked).? You are from Germany so I understand why your writing is bad. You should write in simple sentence then and forget rhetoric. This isn't an English class so no worries.

Firstly, I don't see anything about deep-space combat anywhere else. I know deep-space combat is not passed because we aren't even there yet (plus its not a issue to pass). Among other things not passed: research tree, diplomacy, spying.... so what is your point? I gurantee you deep-space raid will be allowed and will be a good strategy, maybe some race will capitalize on this. What kind of retarded war game that only allow front gate assaults? I'll just mass planetary defense on this system that connects to rest of my territory and win with research victory because that system has nothing but more effective system defenses?

Having a constant term is a very simple and elegant solution to advancing techs. We can use simple moo 1 or warpdrive system while getting effects that we want: mainly, rushes are hard to pull early and colonization are clustered, and naturally, to mid or late game, anything is possible and race aren't as dependent on that map because we practically have the ability to recreate universes. Your example doesn't make sense. I am NOT saying ratio is bad; I am saying Ax+B, allow a constant term B in addition to ratio A. How hard is that? Only one more line of code for modders and a plethera of possibilities.

Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a rock--unimaginative and stubborn. And yes, for the tenth time, technology can affect A and B; yes, you can mod A and B; and YES, my idea encompass the original ratio A idea, but it ADDS more. God!

skdiw, we lost lotsa information with a previous incarnation of this forum. Thats the reason you don't find it. We discussed it for some time, came up with some defense plans and such, but decided that its not feasible. Its not following the #1 rule of this game: KISS

And KISS is?

"Keep It Simple Stupid." Although I have often thought "Keep It Simple, Keep It Stupid."

lol, I like your jokes ablaze!

So what did we decide about basic defense plans... someone should bring it alive in another thread or sticky so ppl know.

A mid-late research could change the starlane:deep space ratio from the original let say 1:6 to 1:3 (1:2 ?) or something similar. So it will help to the players to build in the beginnig and fight in the end.

I think that is what some ppl are saying. But why not just use it constant in the beginning and the 'ratio' will just decrease naturally? is that even simpler?

I think one reason:
1. It is a good technology for the tech tree.

hope someone sees this:

can't recall the name of the game, (ol sega genesis game) but in it you take a race, and do the conquest thing, but it's based on the type of ship you get to use.. (more shi vs ship type thing) anyways.. the main map screen I always liked, cuz unlike MOO, (where all the stars sit there, no animation) this game had a revolving system.. it didn't change much really, it was just alot more pleasing to see...

you could watch the stars expand and contract while you sat there (the galaxies are constantly movin, ya know...).. it looks cool when you see the lines pop up for when yer gettin ready to move... any chance this could be incorporated?

Tek: U are correct when u say the galaxy is 'always moving', however it takes a full 225 or so MILLION years to make a full rotation where we are in it. And generally games only cover a few thousand years... So to all intents and purposes stars may as well be stationary...

But from a gameplay perspective, it's a nice idea