Ground design area

just an idea, that way we all dont have to put our ground stuff into our ship thread because of lack of anywhere else. Also, ground battles will be just as important as space battles in the mod

Or we could rename the Ship Design Area to just Design Area or something of the like. (Is it possible to make a subforum in a subforum? Then we could have a design area and have it divided into a ship design area and a other design area.)

I do not support ground battles in space combat sim anyway. It gets suff too thin, you won't meet ANYTHING on those planets if you give each one of them their own dimension. Besides I think futurecraft is all about space battles, and should not try to be what it isn't .

Iv121 wrote:

I do not support ground battles in space combat sim anyway. It gets suff too thin, you won't meet ANYTHING on those planets if you give each one of them their own dimension. Besides I think futurecraft is all about space battles, and should not try to be what it isn't .

This isn't a space combat sim, its' a future sim. The game shouldnt be to one-sided and entirely focused on space.

I think it is more space focused, and should be that way, but still have a few land things.

Balance is the key here. Space is and will be the main focus, this is set in metaphorical stone. However, robots with laser beams trashing cities is important, too.

"Ooh, look at your enemy robot laying waste to the town!"

*Nuke from space*

Nuke your own city, Ke?

And don't tell me some 200 laserbots laying waste to someone's city wouldn't loo awesome. Even if it's yours.

Well, who doesn´t want to use ground units doesn´t have to, but we should at least give people the ability to do so.

No. The second you do it you have to commit to it fully or we just get crap in the end. It is better without ground troops at all but if you start making them you cannot stop half-way, and be sure people will use them and it won't be space oriented anymore.

Iv121 wrote:

No. The second you do it you have to commit to it fully or we just get crap in the end. It is better without ground troops at all but if you start making them you cannot stop half-way, and be sure people will use them and it won't be space oriented anymore.

Even if there is as much ground-stuff as there is space-stuff, it will stay a space-oriented game, as travell through space is a requirement to get on enemy ground in the first place.
Also, I wasn´t talking about stopping half-way at development of ground-stuff, I meant it should be fully developed, but if one doesn´t want ground-stuff, he/she doesn´t have to build ground-stuff, much like you can play Tekkit but not even touch anything related to EE if you don´t want to.

Do you see my point?

The point is that your house won't explode if you don't touch EE, unlike your bunk if you don't build ground troops. I believe the only presence of ground should be docking with a planet, refuelling, buying some crap ad going back to space. Ground forces become useless anyway once you get good planetary bombing (not necessarily nuking your own town, precise lasers are enough, you can keep the nuke for the enemy town to make ground troops totally useless )

Iv121 wrote:

The point is that your house won't explode if you don't touch EE, unlike your bunk if you don't build ground troops. I believe the only presence of ground should be docking with a planet, refuelling, buying some crap ad going back to space. Ground forces become useless anyway once you get good planetary bombing (not necessarily nuking your own town, precise lasers are enough, you can keep the nuke for the enemy town to make ground troops totally useless )

And how exactly are you going to secure your ground- installations without ground troops?

Surp. Grm. Ivan Kintobor wrote:

much like you can play Tekkit but not even touch anything related to EE if you don´t want to.

I agree with you in that there should be ground forces, but this is a stupid argument. That's not a good example at all, because it doesn't work that way. That said, there will be tanks.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Surp. Grm. Ivan Kintobor wrote:

much like you can play Tekkit but not even touch anything related to EE if you don´t want to.

I agree with you in that there should be ground forces, but this is a stupid argument. That's not a good example at all, because it doesn't work that way. That said, there will be tanks.

Okay, I agree, it was a bad argument.
And I´m glad that there will be tanks.
Heavy guns FTW!

Why won't I just mount a tank cannon on my cruiser ? More mobility same strength just this cannon is supported by 20 more. I'm not going to protect my bunk couse I gonna have a space installations because it is the focus of the game. It is a pointless argument indeed I just want to warn you that by chasing too many birds at once as it often happens in this forum section you will catch none.

Iv121 wrote:

Why won't I just mount a tank cannon on my cruiser ? More mobility same strength just this cannon is supported by 20 more. I'm not going to protect my bunk couse I gonna have a space installations because it is the focus of the game. It is a pointless argument indeed I just want to warn you that by chasing too many birds at once as it often happens in this forum section you will catch none.

If you want to mount a tank cannon on your cruiser, by all means do so. Weapons that are useful against tanks will probably be like peashooters against spaceships, given that a cruiser can't really be much less than 300 or so blocks long and tanks are five, but if you really want to I don't see why you shouldn't. Space installations will never be as good for protecting bases on the ground as tanks and infantry are. Think about real-life warfare. You can bomb an enemy country all you want, but boots on the ground is the only way to hold territory. If your logic worked, there would be no infantry, boats, or tanks, because high-altitude bombers are already perfect weapons. It just doesn't work like that.

Alright, still I have yet to see a tank that fits into a bunk, either way there is no need to make ground vehicles. Plus I believe it will take much more than an RPG to take out a cruiser, unlike a tank.

And the thing about the birds still stands ...

Iv121 wrote:

Alright, still I have yet to see a tank that fits into a bunk, either way there is no need to make ground vehicles. Plus I believe it will take much more than an RPG to take out a cruiser, unlike a tank.

Then goddamn don´t build tanks if you think they´re useless instead of suggesting not to implement them at all!
God!

Surp. Grm. Ivan Kintobor wrote:

Iv121 wrote:

Alright, still I have yet to see a tank that fits into a bunk, either way there is no need to make ground vehicles. Plus I believe it will take much more than an RPG to take out a cruiser, unlike a tank.

Then goddamn don´t build tanks if you think they´re useless instead of suggesting not to implement them at all!
Christ! (For you I better say "Moses!")

1. You still didn't solve the birds problem,
2. If something is uselss why should you implement it ?
3. You do not say "Moses" as it would be promoting him into a god which is forbidden, just "God" (If Christ is a god in your way )

Iv121 wrote:

Surp. Grm. Ivan Kintobor wrote:

Iv121 wrote:

Alright, still I have yet to see a tank that fits into a bunk, either way there is no need to make ground vehicles. Plus I believe it will take much more than an RPG to take out a cruiser, unlike a tank.

Then goddamn don´t build tanks if you think they´re useless instead of suggesting not to implement them at all!
Christ! (For you I better say "Moses!")

1. You still didn't solve the birds problem,
2. If something is uselss why should you implement it ?
3. You do not say "Moses" as it would be promoting him into a god which is forbidden, just "God" (If Christ is a god in your way )

1. LJS explained it
2. Point 1 is denied, making point 2 invalid as well.
3. Okay, Ill fix it. Want to be politically and religiously correct. Actually, We reffer to Christ as "God´s son", altough Christ and Jahwe (I hope that´s spelled right) God are actually two of three forms of appearence of god according to christian believe.

Ground forces will be nesesary for beginning worlds, Since they would need ways of counqering enough people to build something beyond an airplane. Plus think about it in realtime if all you can use is spaceships then how fair would it be? Then someone with a deceant fleet could wipe out a planet with zip defence, Whereas if they can build Artillilery and Ion Cannons and stuff too defend themselves, Then it gets a tad bit fairer.

Also what idiot in a spacesim would build their city on the surface? Anyone with a braincell would build their city underground.

Ground units will be useful THROUGHOUT futurecraft. Enemy planet? Nuke from space. Nuke flying at you from space? Implement a ground-based shield generator to protect your city. Powerful shield get in the way of your nuke? Send in the Mechs (or tanks, infantry, horse cavalry, whatever). Mechs attacking your base? Unleash your ground defense turrets and defense mechs (or tanks, infantry, horse cavalry, whatever).

Enemy fleet over your planet? Unleash hell with your ODPs. ODPs need power? Generator. Generator can't be built for space? Put it on ground.

Very good point, cats. It's more than feasible to have some form of interdependency between the two aspects of the game, much like EVE online is doing with Dust514.

As you noticed though both games are separate. I won't convince you not to add ground vehicles because you may hit your face like 100 years from no and it won't help. Instead I say - lets focus for now on something more futurecraft such as making the ship flying, shooting, exploding, making materials , technology , race , lore ,AI , gas mining and pretty much any other idea that has something to do with space, and when you get some time do this one as it is not the focus of the game as you admitted. If you focus on space then space should be implemented first.