Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Yes, mines should definitely do the damage type listed, and not have automatic shield-skipping.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually in the real world mines are intended to be a "stealth death". Nobody will mine the ground and then establish a sign "Caution! Mines here!", unless you want to flood enemy with incorrect information.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Imo, the easiest way to fix minesweeping for se5 is to use ability Can sweep N kt of mines per use., instead of current Can sweep N mine per use.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmmm...I didn't want to say this, it could turn this SE5 discussion into an OT flamewar, but consider the DMZ between North and South Korea:

It is mined.

Everyone on the planet Earth knows this.

The opponents do not know exactly where each mine is, but know not to go there.

If North and South Korea want to have a war (does that statement make sense outside of SE4? oh well), they must go around the mine fields.

Allies, and neutral parties can't enter the minefield and feel safe. Wildlife there is booming from the lack of human incursion.

Heck, even if the minefield is mapped out, and you have the map in hand, it's still a hazardous place, the map could be wrong, landmarks could shift, etc.

The US takes a lot of flack because the existance of this (arguably) useful minefield, undermines worldwide efforts to ban all minefields.

I'm suggesting that the addition of some of these challanges to SE5 minefields would make the game more interesting.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

True but against shipping most Harbors will be mined with stealth in mind http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I know this is about se5 mines; however, GLV.
If you use the se4 TDM AI (extra mine sweeper class http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) and only place your fields at the warp points and (try) to reframe from a desperate Planet mine launch against the AI Fleets - mines are fun.

-- --
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">AGREED

Perhaps not both armor and shields at the same time: for general AI design concerns - but certainly the (Highest defensive value) of at least one or the other

= = = = = = = = = =

I like most of Arkcon se5 ideas posted here - June 18, 2004 08:10 PM http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ June 20, 2004, 15:49: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Even better, have the minesweepers do actual damage to the mines. Then, you can add armor (or even maneuvering thrusters if you want to make it abstract) to the mines to get better protection against sweeping at the expensive of payload. A good alternative to spamming the fields with small mines with only a single warhead, if you ask me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Also, it does not increase the micromanagement very much at all, as the only change in practice would be in how you design your mines in the first place.

[ June 20, 2004, 19:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nah (shield-skipping),
If Aaron keeps the random ship damage introduced in 1.91 it will be way too easy to just steam straight through a minefield as soon as you have a decent sized fleet (as you can with organic armored ships now). Of course you can ballance that with bigger warheads, but then again you might make the early stray fields too powerfull. I kinda like it as it is as it helps making armor (even the regular one) a viable alternative to shields.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nah (shield-skipping),
If Aaron keeps the random ship damage introduced in 1.91 it will be way too easy to just steam straight through a minefield as soon as you have a decent sized fleet (as you can with organic armored ships now). Of course you can ballance that with bigger warheads, but then again you might make the early stray fields too powerfull. I kinda like it as it is as it helps making armor (even the regular one) a viable alternative to shields. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Perhaps you misunderstand me.
I still think stock mines should use the shield skipping damage type.

HOWEVER, the mines should not be shield skipping if their damage type is changed to "normal"

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

The purpose of earth bound mines is to slow down an enemies advance.

I agree with the stop movement policy. Toning down the damage would be my vote.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Originally posted by sachmo:
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">For se5 agreed. would like the AI to defend itself, however.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am unsure of the stop movement policy taking a mass root - there must be better options?

SJ has toned the se4 mines down effectivly and they work fine http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I would like to see this in se5 stock.

[ June 21, 2004, 15:41: Message edited by: JLS ]