SEV Recommend?

[Phoenix-D]

The decks are just for extra layout space, but the component position does matter; it determines what gets hit when in combat.

[Suicide Junkie]

There are four directions damage can come from, front, back, left,right, and internals will be damaged in that order.

In stock, placement is really irrelevant, since the shields and armor are not leaky, and once they fail the guts of the ship are all vaporized almost instantly.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Directional damage but not directional weapons. (Sigh...where is the sad Graemlin when you need it?)

[Raapys]

Yeah, firing arcs would have been nice, so we couldn't just put a weapon on the back of the ship on the middle section and expect it to fire forwards.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yeah, firing arcs would have been nice, so we couldn't just put a weapon on the back of the ship on the middle section and expect it to fire forwards.

Exactly. Its stuff like this that feels woefully underdeveloped. I'd rather not have it in the game at all if its going to be basically incomplete.

SE5 seems like a lot of really good ideas, but the design does not feel tight at all. If the game design ever catches up to the feature list I think it will be great. Until then, it feels sorely lacking.

[Slick]

Although I think firing arcs would be great if they worked, I just can't see them working well with the current state of the game/AI or even a realistic future state. The combat decision making routines would need increase dramatically in complexity and I just don't see that happening. I'd much rather the overall game AI be improved before tackling this monster. Or better, improving the UI first.

Side note: The Starfleet Command series revolves around tactical combat and ships have weapon arcs. The AI has gone thru many improvements from the days of SFC1, where the ships would only basically charge for overruns, but even after SFC2, SFCOP and SFC3, the AI still has a very hard time with weapon arcs and is the reason that retrograding (ships going backwards) was never able to be implemented. Yes, they have a totally nerfed retrograde in SFC3, but it is so nerfed as to be not really usable.

[Wardad]

I'm playing simultaneous game now. I have scout ships with and 1 extra propulsion point. Enemy fleets are chasing them and engage in many combats per turn.

It takes over 20 minutes to process a turn. So the AI is not just stupid, it's slow. I drink my coffee, walk the dog, finish my master thesis, win an election, and the turn is still not finished.
I turned down the combat report log to 1 turn (0 turn, and same with the log. I have a AMD Dual Core processor, 2GB ram, 256MB Sata drive, good video, and CIV4 runs fast.
So what's the deal? What is PBW secret?

[Suicide Junkie]

Appending the log file only takes a few seconds, depending on your HDD speed.

Reducing the combat log history can help with the .CMB size and download times, tho.

The real problem is that the combat algorithms have to keep chugging through many combats. If you'd had 11 or 12 full on smashemup combats it would be the same way.

IMO, the best thing to do is disable retreat. If your fleet survives combat, it can run away normally, but no 12 combats in a row with no shooting.

[Wardad]

oops, looks like the best thing to do is stop playing.
maybe someday it will be worth the price.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yep, I noticed excessively long turn processing too...even early in the game. I hate to think what it would be like if I actually played a game out past turn 20 or 30. I thought maybe it was just my system or something.

Out of curiosity, how does one disable retreat?