Any word on the naval or orbital stuff?

Every weapon is better hidden for purpose of combat.

But let's stop with logical reasoning for variety of weapon types, because if we want to do that, we must first get rid of all these silly bipedal robots that were featured in preview of the game render.

This game is built on the idea of rule of cool.

I wouldn't always say so, the ability to flaunt some kind of strength on the battlefield would centainly make a player think twice about their menouvers and stratigy.

However weapons like atomics and possibly some kind of satellite construction vessile might qualify for the kind of thing you want to keep tucked away in a corner.

That or a kind of amphibious tank factory to allow you to swarm onto the beaches.

Bipeds can be good for all terrain travel.

But there is a reason the game still uses tanks, even if they may eventually be replaced by gunships. :roll:

But rule of cool doesnt build effective warmachines, we want efficentcy form the units not cool effects that don't really do anything.

We can get efficiency and rule of cool, since we're not bound by the laws of phsyics.

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN streight.

Being unseen is best form of deception for combat. As for intimidation, that's more political. You don't want to waste time "flaunting" your arsenal against adversity who is already set on fighting you, you get busy killing. And weapons are most lethal when the enemy is not expecting them.

They are mechanically inferior weapons platform to simple tracks.

Because it's a game, they can do whatever. Real life there are different reasons but I assume you did not want to extend this particular reasoning to there.

You want to argue for "efficiency" in a game where bipedal robots battle over planets by hurling asteroids? :roll:

This is a sci-fi war game that features stompy robot commanders. There is nothing efficient about that premise.

You want efficiency in tactics/player decisions. As for actual game pieces that you play with, you want them interesting and balanced (which means certain units will be gimped than their logical capacity).

Then there is no determining standard to deem something efficient, since any base rules can be changed. That's just rule of cool, not efficient.

Giant magnet units might sound cool, and they are but the pull and smash experimental was just that: Cool but inpractable.

What I mean by efficentcy is efficentcy in gameplay rather then what it actually is.

I'm down for that. Of course units should be efficient to have a good purpose in gameplay. Most definitely should be the case.

As long as they are not overpowered of course. A commander that can instantly snipe off enemey commander right off the start would be uber efficient but would break the game so bad

Yeah, I also meant efficient in gameplay, not efficient in game lore. We can have units that work well in a match, and look cool to boot.

The "rule of cool" is mainly a defense against temporary breaches in logical consistency.

It dosent trow all logic from a game out the window.

So saying that they should stop using "Its logical" arguments, just becuse the game design includes the "rule of cool" (on occasion), isent realy a good argument.

(Sorry, couldent help it)

From a logic perspective though there is pretty much nothing that would stand real scrutiny. Games are very crude simulations at their best.

It is common for people to gripe about issues they perceive in games, but this is because they have knowledge of that specific part of the world. They don't complain about all the other stuff, simply because they lack the knowledge to understand that it's incorrect.

There's probably even a name for that syndrome and it's really annoying, but something game designers should probably ignore since it's unavoidable.

This!

And i want to add, most stuff should allways judged gameplay and engine wise, after that just find a f'ing narrative that sounds ok (for people who need that).

Ok, someone brought up Project Habakkuk, and, well, I thought that perhaps having 'All water' planets could include ice caps (Mountainous, rough terrain you generally can't build on), and then...

Icebergs.


How awesome would it be to be able to build on an iceberg that floats in a pattern through the water? Icebergs you can build on.

And perhaps being able to build engines and slowly move the icebergs...as the berg enters combat it could take a certain amount of damage, and then it starts to break apart, becoming a huge scattered floe of ice to block passage of sea units...