SE5, Tell Aaron what's on your Wish List

[Ed Kolis]

Ahead to sides? As in an arc facing from straight forward to straight east? Then place the weapon in the northeast corner of the ship!
edit: oh, yeah, now I understand
Well that would really depend on the hull configuration, so maybe it would be better to have the arc direction determined by the slot's data entry in the ship design... problem is, since in SE5 there are no "weapon" specific slots you'd need to define a firing arc for every slot in the hull!
Maybe weapons should be limited to outer hull, though... that might narrow it down a bit...

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

You mean firing arcs from 315 degrees to 135 degrees? (right-firing)

Q said:
I like to have multiple sphereworlds in a system!

Then find a binary or trinary star system and build to your heart's content. (or, until you get bored again and go off to pester Picard )

[Kana]

Heck why limit arcs to just weapons...you could have shield, sensor, arcs to name a few...

Kana

[Q]

Strategia_In_Ultima said:
You mean firing arcs from 315 degrees to 135 degrees? (right-firing)

Then find a binary or trinary star system and build to your heart's content. (or, until you get bored again and go off to pester Picard )

Oh I already built 5 sphereworlds in a system! But I never can get enough!
Regarding the arcs of weapons: can anybody answer the question (from the video/without violation the NDA) if it matters if you put a weapon in the front/rear or on the side of a ship at all? From the screen shots I had the impression, that this was not the case (in contrast to starfury). Then of course all discussions about arcs would be futile.

[Slick]

I'd like to expand Q's question to include all components. The reason is in Starfury, internal component placement did matter. Once Shields/Armor on a side were gone, components placed near that side were taken out first. This makes component placement a little bit of a game in itself. An identically equipped (but not identically configured) ship in SF could be inferior to another if its internal components were placed adjacent to less shielded sides. (The components in question would be those which go in the general area and are directionless like Bridge, ECM, etc.)

While this idea may/may not have been intended for SF, I kinda like it for SF; makes ship design fun. BUT I personally don't think that should be part of SE:V.

[Ed Kolis]

I think that if there's an opaque storm, then you shouldn't be able to see OUT of it or THROUGH it as well, not just INTO it!

[El_Phil]

Ahh but what if your on the edge of an opaque storm, so you signal gets lost in the general rubbish?

Hence explaining why storms are only opaque to a certain level of scanner/sensor.

[Seik]

Another idea:

Strategies
Sometimes the range for a strategy is not exactly what you want, why not give it a min and max range (ex. MinRange="4" to MaxRange="6") instead?!

[Q]

More display options for the galaxy map like:
- show systems with more than X enemy ships.
- systems with facility Y present.
- systems with colonies of empire Z (you don't see that in SE IV when more than one empire is present in a system).
- systems with new enemy colonies since last turn.

[Atrocities]

#2, systems with facility Y presents is already part of SEIV at the system level. Is that what you mean?

The rest are good suggestions, they are all good suggestions.