Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I dont know, I think that a mine should attempt detonation even if it is detected. however a detected mine should have less chance of hitting the ship than an undetected mine (the ship knows it is there and trys to avoid it)

also what if the size of the ships effected the to hit chance? that might be annother way of keeping the smaller ship sizes all throuhg the game.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I dont know, I think that a mine should attempt detonation even if it is detected. however a detected mine should have less chance of hitting the ship than an undetected mine (the ship knows it is there and trys to avoid it)

also what if the size of the ships effected the to hit chance? that might be annother way of keeping the smaller ship sizes all throuhg the game. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Perhaps but the main point I think is that if a fleet is capable of detecting mines it is not going to plow through a minefield after just sweeping what it can. It would stop I think.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

ok, I think I see what your saying.

if a mine attempts to destroy/damage a ship and fails does the mine still exist? or has it destroyed itself in the attempt?

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

I would keep the part where a ship running into an unknown minefield doesn't get to raise shields before the hits come in, but change the mechanics so that ships going into a known minefield should be able to raise shields.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Features adding strategic options is cool, but features that justs adds micromanagement (like the decaying field) is not cool.

Whatever Aaron chooses for plain SEV, I hope he don't forget its a game, not a simulator http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Of course, I don't mind him keeping as many options as possible available for the modders. I can always choose not to play their mods.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Decaying units of any sort is no fun. I am with Primitive on this one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Stars! had a lot of horrible features that just drove up the micromanagement without making the game any more fun. Sure, they were realistic, but ALWAYS gameplay over realism. And that is not a blanket statement I have problems making. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Here is an idea for a mine engine:

You take the number of mines in the minefield and place them in a "x-y grid" based on some setting in a data file. Say approx. 25% of the sectors are occupied with mines by default.

The ships that enter the minefield each have a random path through the grid. If they hit a mine then they take damage, if they make it through then great.

Of course, this would be a cpu process and not an actual graphic sequence in the game.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

I think mines should slow your ships down based on the denisty... ( due to sweeping ) and if you wish to plow though damage will happen.

So you could set your minimal sweep for the fleet / ships and say you say sweep 50 mines a movement and the minefield had 100 mines it would take 2 movement points to sweep it.. If it had a 1000 mines then it would take a while longer...

If your fleet is cloaked then the sweepers would be halfed... Uncloaked to sweep sucks...

Cloaking is bad as it is... this just ruins it.

I would also like to see differnent styles of mines... Yea STars had a good minesystem... it was good but not quite there.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

what was missing from stars!'s mining system?

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Not having the pointless micromanagement of having to continuously replaced degraded fields for one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif