Myrias

Dear all, I am totally going for orbital warfare. That is even what i thought about before buying my subscription. I did dream about it. It is a crafting game; thus, I think the balance is in the resource each side has to invest. The orbital/air defense prevents the attacker from threatening your most precious building directly unless a tremendous advantage of the attack force. I would give the defender a resource advantage for the same battle power (firepower + defensive lifespan) because the defender is static and must cover all their territory. (The edge can come naturally from e.g., not having to build space/hover engines) However, the attacker can focus their fleet on a precise point and make a breach into the defense for landing. I say this because I am thinking about the whole planet's defense. It will undoubtedly be one of my goals in the game for my organization to conquer an entire world for ourselves. Obviously, defensive orbital weapons wouldn't serve as a ground defense but only for high air/space and be limited by the planet curvature. That would force the attacker to attack from lands kilometers away from most previous buildings. That would give the defender depth to defend. The depth you don't have with orbital because well... you are in the open. However, if you have so much firepower, why bother circumvent the orbital defense? Just blast it from orbit. And if the defence is poorly planned, then maybe orbital assault is circumventing the land defense. Finally, I think this game is all about emerging gameplay from basic principles instead of creating gameplay as usual in games. Maybe the players will end up building their base kilometers underground instead. Even in real life, meteor impact would certainly raze the surface, but they don't "dig" the surface that much. Build for seismic thought. Best regards,

Dear all, 1: I suggest these four systems not to be exclusive but complementary. Each would measure quantities of information on the target. Enough information allows us to calculate its distance, velocity, and acceleration. That is lock-on when you have them as it will allow you to fire were the target will be based on recent measurements. Of course, a target can change course during the time of flight of your ordinance, that is acceleration. If you are going to the radar cross-section, you can consider the whole link budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_budget. That is still spreadsheet level (first rough estimation) calculations after all. It would consider the radar emitted power (after antenna gain), distance, reflected power (that where cross-section impact), return distance, reception gain. The advantage of bigger vessels is to emit more power and have a bigger antenna array (that is better antenna gain). Meanwhile, the advantage of a smaller vessel would be the lower cross-section. That is for radar, where you illuminate the target. But on the thermal side, you have to look at the emitted power (EM radiation) from the target exhaust flare, return distance, reception gain. After that, you can do an exciting thing if you suppose you have excellent thermal isolation that allows you to survive in a minimally powered, cold vessel. Then you are cold (not emitting power), stealthy (low cross-section, you reflect little power). Gravimetric detection will be useful to detect your hiding vessel. However, a capital ship looking for you would be emitting power with its radar making it easy for you to see it in return. Finally, it would be the ship designer choice to install all the four systems and spare the space for the antenna/telescope size (basically, a telescope is a reception antenna in the visible specter) Please do not consider my following citation as publicity. I am not working for them, nor I believe them competitive to Dual. To acquire insight into targeting mechanism, I would recommend the following simulation game. 3: In ballistics, nothing fire in line, everything fire in a cone. Even if a cone is very narrow, the precision naturally degrades in distance square (imagine a more extended cone that keeps constant its angle). It is different, but similar to the laser that sent the light over the whole cone. Thus, the laser focuses the EM power on a small surface at close range, enough to do thermal damage. A long-distance, the laser spray the light over square meters and become virtually a, not even warm spotlight. To acquire insight into realistic space combat, I would recommend the following simulation game. All of it is still at the spreadsheet level. Best regards,

Dear all, I am strongly opposed to this suggestion. Indeed, it would forfeit the possibilities of the naval bomber doctrine that is a real-life example. It also relates to the destroyer and torpedo doctrine against capital ships. However, I personally expect small vessels built around big weapons to be strongly encumbered by it. And that either by mass, ammo limitation, energy, fuel requirement. Before you oppose the real-life countermeasure of the naval screen, that is an escort of destroyers to protect a capital vessel. Indeed a naval screen would force you to play with other players in e.g., space fighter to defend you. I strongly suggest that it is possible for a capital ship to defend alone against a destroyer swarm if the capital ship is designed with enough secondary weapons. These secondary weapons would have firepower and range enough to force the swarm to stay enough away. This distance allows the capital ship to dodge or be missed by unguided ordinance and more time to intercept guided ones. Moreover, real-life destroyers are protected by the curvature of the ocean that allows them to hide under the horizon until a closer distance. This particular point is not possible in space. Moreover, it is even more difficult to hide in space than on earth because of the heat emission (EM infrared emission) against the dark, cold background. Meanwhile, active radar forces an EM reflection from a target by illuminating it. My apologies I have gone astray. As you certainly noticed, I am speaking from a certain scientific realism point of view. I am pleased to have joined your community yesterday. Thus, I am very unfamiliar with the combat mechanics of the game. And I am aware that in-game, mechanics can be... Arbitrary. Best regards,

Dear Developers I am pleased to have joined your up-and-coming project yesterday. However, I am afraid I have already spent more than 10 hours battling to exhaustion the voxel warping. To put the thing on display, I join my bane of the subject. As you can see in the background, I successfully dodged the problem once using the triangular base form that goes diagonally. Therefore, I know pointy aesthetics are possible. However, achieving the same success when following the grid direction remains painfully elusive. Best regards,