Do Planets need Cargo facilities?
 

If so, what for? It seems to me that you are in a constant state of production and those items which you produce are constantly being offloaded onto ships. My planets all have one cargo facility, but, I hardly ever see it used and I believe that the included cargo storage of many of the facilities would be adequate.....?

Re: Do Planets need Cargo facilities?
 

Planets inherently have a certain amount of storage, domed far less than undomed (similar to pop and facilities). Cargo Facilities are for EXTRA storage or for strategic uses (like a hidden moon).

Re: Do Planets need Cargo facilities?
 

I think the only time I'd use cargo facilities would be for a military outpost that was vital to hold for strategic reasons. Even so, I don't think I've ever built one.

Any other planet worth defending would probably be better used producing more resources to support more ships. I prefer production and mobility to entrenchment. Just my take on them.

Re: Do Planets need Cargo facilities?
 

guess I must be different. I use them to add space for fighters, weapon platforms.

Re: Do Planets need Cargo facilities?
 

On the subject of Cargo Facilities, IMO, they should be changed. They should be like the Cargo Holds on ships. When troops / sats/ fighters are in the cargo space of a ship, they are not useable in space combat unless launched / dropped on planet. To me, that should be the same way on a planet.

For instance, to launch fighters from a planet, you should have a ship yard (or possibly a new facility - Launch Pad or something) in order to use them. If you don't have the facility, all you could do with them is transfer them like cargo. Of course, this would not hold true for ground troops, they're right where they need to be.

This would probably be a bear to program - I would not have a clue as to how to do this. However, I don't think its right for a planet with no space facilities (SY, SP, or otherwise) to be able to launch mines or sats. They possibly should be able to launch fighters, but with a very limited capacity.

I think this would add to gameplay and realism, not take away from them. OTOH, many other improvements / bug fixes should take priority IMO.

Re: Do Planets need Cargo facilities?
 

I always love it when people talk about realism when discussing a Sci-fi game.

Re: Do Planets need Cargo facilities?
 

That DOES seem to be a nonsequitur, doesn't it? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Do Planets need Cargo facilities?
 

for all going "huh???"

Non Sequitur = a response that does not follow logically from anything previously said

Re: Do Planets need Cargo facilities?
 

Recall that these fighters can fly to the sun, or to the edge of the solar system in one turn (depending on actual design). If they can do that, I sure that taking off from a planetary surface is no problem.

If a fighter can get to orbit by itself, you can launch as many as you want at the same time, from anywhere on the surface.

The cargo space is just to store the fighters so they don't rust in the rain http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.

Re: Do Planets need Cargo facilities?
 

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I don't know of many SciFi lines that have characters launching mines or sats from thier "backyard catapults". They always have some kind of infrastructure support to accomplish this. They sometimes launch fighters but usually from some kind of airstrip or something. I'm not looking to reproduce reality, just enhance the gameplay. Right now it's too easy to defend planets with mines and sats. IMO they need to have an infrastructure in place to support them (mines and sats). Also IMO cargo facilities just don't have the infrastructure. I mean, you can't launch 'em (sats, mines, and fighters) from a cargo ship without the proper components. Why would a planet be any different other than for ease of programming?

It may also make it more important to leave a fleet or two to protect the home systems behind enemy lines.