mstrobel wrote:
It would only make a difference if we ditched the grid-based map and went with starlanes like MoO.
Not really. It would still allow deep space combat; especially wih interceptions. You just wouldn't be able to willingly set a course to a deep space sector.
Quote:
That would mean the player couldn't build starbases outside of star systems, take advantage of nebulas to hide fleets, etc.
Nebulae would be like a system; they could be set as a destination. So would BHs, NSs, and any other stellar body. As for SBs, they could still be built on system with no planets, or with just GGs; or any sector with any non-starsystem planetary body. Science Stations on NSs or BHs.
Quote:
It would also render the waypoint system more or less useless.
Waypoints would be star systems themselves. Like setting patrol paths. Which you can do now anyway.
It could make the way you set up your sensor grid more important. With a free movement system, you can just park a few scouts strategically in deep space, and forget about scanners.
Also, with the extended range of ships, OPs and SBs are probably not going to have the expected gameplay value; except maybe when built deep within enemy territory.
Quote:
Besides, 80x80 sectors is friggin' huge. The people who want more than that are the kind of people who probably won't be satisfied with this game no matter what decisions we make because the kind of depth they want just isn't physically possible on today's computers (and is way more than the typical player wants anyway). I started this project because I wanted to build a Trek strategy game that can appeal to 90% of players; I'm not really interested in catering to the ones looking for an entire Star Trek universe simulated on their PC.
Hey, you have no argument from me there. I'm not into huge maps. I like a more personalized empire. Movement to systems only doesn't require larger maps. MoO didn't really have huge maps
And I'm also not looking for a TV show; I want to play a strategy game.
