long distance travel

[Anguille]

ORIGINAL: PJL

ORIGINAL: elliotg
This will be explained in the video on Combat and Fleet Operations, but briefly: there are no artificial numeric limits on resupply (e.g. number of ships it can handle, etc). Resupply Ships mine fuel from the normal sources: gas giant planets and gas clouds. They are basically large mobile military bases that deploy at a fuel source and then become a refueling point for your fleets.

So if there is no ship limit, then is there at least a limit on how much fuel they can store? And presumable they have their own range limit as well? Otherwise I can see them being abused as a nasty exploit if they don't have any such limits.

Each ship has a limit and it has to refuel after a while. Once the fuel is gone, you can still move but very very slowly.

Now...if you can find and destroy a refueling point of the enemy...[;)]

[ypsylon]

Now...if you can find and destroy a refueling point of the enemy...[;)]

Narns tried that vs Centauri Republic at Gorash 7 and they've lost Narn itself. [:D]

[Anguille]

ORIGINAL: ypsylon

Now...if you can find and destroy a refueling point of the enemy...[;)]

Narns tried that vs Centauri Republic at Gorash 7 and they've lost Narn itself. [:D]

Hey...i look forward to your Babylon 5 mod [:'(]

[dingbat911]

just had another question pop up from watching the videos (for about the 15th-16th time...each...don't judge me!)

doing a little observative pause on the galactopedia and I noticed a topic about boarding (6:33 - game controls) and it took my interest.

is a blockade system in place (so you could limit certain trade types or possibly even force a "toll" of sorts?) or is it just plonking a fleet in orbit and blasting freighters out of the sky?

also on 6:18 (same video) one might notice the expansion planner screen topic [;)] that sounds like it could be mighty useful...

[elliotg]

ORIGINAL: dingbat911
doing a little observative pause on the galactopedia and I noticed a topic about boarding (6:33 - game controls) and it took my interest.

is a blockade system in place (so you could limit certain trade types or possibly even force a "toll" of sorts?) or is it just plonking a fleet in orbit and blasting freighters out of the sky?

Blockades mean no ships can dock at the target of the blockade (colony or base). So no freighters for trade, no refueling, etc. But blockades must be enforced by one of your fleets, otherwise the target empire may just ignore your blockade. If any ships attempt to run the blockade then your fleet will give them a good blasting [:)]. Very easy way for wars to start...

also on 6:18 (same video) one might notice the expansion planner screen topic [;)] that sounds like it could be mighty useful...

Indeed it is [:)] The expansion planner will be discussed in the very next video, which is on the topic of Expansion.

[dingbat911]

ORIGINAL: elliotg
Blockades mean no ships can dock at the target of the blockade (colony or base). So no freighters for trade, no refueling, etc. But blockades must be enforced by one of your fleets, otherwise the target empire may just ignore your blockade. If any ships attempt to run the blockade then your fleet will give them a good blasting [:)]. Very easy way for wars to start...

interesting but may I ask what bonus this provides over capture or destruction of the base?
As it seems if you get into that level of hostility with a faction speaking terms are pretty much gone, and destroying or taking control of the base (if base capture is possible) would be much more beneficial as it doesn't tie up a fleet...

[Gertjan]

Cool I like the option of blockades[&o]

[elliotg]

ORIGINAL: dingbat911

ORIGINAL: elliotg
Blockades mean no ships can dock at the target of the blockade (colony or base). So no freighters for trade, no refueling, etc. But blockades must be enforced by one of your fleets, otherwise the target empire may just ignore your blockade. If any ships attempt to run the blockade then your fleet will give them a good blasting [:)]. Very easy way for wars to start...

interesting but may I ask what bonus this provides over capture or destruction of the base?
As it seems if you get into that level of hostility with a faction speaking terms are pretty much gone, and destroying or taking control of the base (if base capture is possible) would be much more beneficial as it doesn't tie up a fleet...

You can impose trade sanctions against another empire, and this is when you might want to also blockade some of their key colonies or space ports. Trade sanctions is not the same as war, so there's no shooting until you decide there should be. Because trade and the free flow of resources are so critical in the game, blockades and trade sanctions can be an effective way of hurting a competitor without full-blown war. You don't necessarily need an entire fleet to enforce a blockade - just enough military ships to make the other empire think twice about running the blockade.

[dingbat911]

ORIGINAL: elliotg
You can impose trade sanctions against another empire, and this is when you might want to also blockade some of their key colonies or space ports. Trade sanctions is not the same as war, so there's no shooting until you decide there should be. Because trade and the free flow of resources are so critical in the game, blockades and trade sanctions can be an effective way of hurting a competitor without full-blown war. You don't necessarily need an entire fleet to enforce a blockade - just enough military ships to make the other empire think twice about running the blockade.

I see...

to further the question on this, how does such action affect diplomacy on a whole

in real life trade sanctions and blockades would cause a lot of background opinions and politics to be formed, and sustained because of various things like background politics or lack of public opinion in engaging in conflict as well as the possible lack of military force. and external countries and organisations would get involved to try and deal with the solution peacefully (or possibly lend aid if a conflict began)

now how is this controlled in game? what would stop the larger player from just continuing the blockade into full war, or crushing the smaller empire that tried to blockade their port.

do other empires have an opinion of your actios against other empires, is there some form of restraint on declaring wars or initating direct agressive acts

in essence, what would make a blockaded empire NOT want to declare war excluding lack of military?

[Gertjan]

Indeed is there a screen which easily explains how the relations between players is determined, like in civ4, galciv2, and sins: diplomacy?

[ASHBERY76]

ORIGINAL: Gertjan

Indeed is there a screen which easily explains how the relations between players is determined, like in civ4, galciv2, and sins: diplomacy?

It is shown in the videos,it looks CIV4 style.

[elliotg]

ORIGINAL: dingbat911

ORIGINAL: elliotg
You can impose trade sanctions against another empire, and this is when you might want to also blockade some of their key colonies or space ports. Trade sanctions is not the same as war, so there's no shooting until you decide there should be. Because trade and the free flow of resources are so critical in the game, blockades and trade sanctions can be an effective way of hurting a competitor without full-blown war. You don't necessarily need an entire fleet to enforce a blockade - just enough military ships to make the other empire think twice about running the blockade.

I see...

to further the question on this, how does such action affect diplomacy on a whole

in real life trade sanctions and blockades would cause a lot of background opinions and politics to be formed, and sustained because of various things like background politics or lack of public opinion in engaging in conflict as well as the possible lack of military force. and external countries and organisations would get involved to try and deal with the solution peacefully (or possibly lend aid if a conflict began)

now how is this controlled in game? what would stop the larger player from just continuing the blockade into full war, or crushing the smaller empire that tried to blockade their port.

do other empires have an opinion of your actios against other empires, is there some form of restraint on declaring wars or initating direct agressive acts

in essence, what would make a blockaded empire NOT want to declare war excluding lack of military?

Initiating blockades against another empire will definitely make them dislike you [:)]

Each empire has a reputation - your noble and evil actions in the game affect your reputation for better or worse. Other empires view of you is partly influenced by your reputation. So if you do a lot of nasty things other empires will take a dim view of you, and may even gang up against you.

Also, when you appear overstretched in wars or trade sanctions against other empires, your enemies may take advantage of this and declare war on you when you least want it. So you should choose your actions carefully, unless you like full-on chaos of course [:)]

[elliotg]

ORIGINAL: Gertjan
Indeed is there a screen which easily explains how the relations between players is determined, like in civ4, galciv2, and sins: diplomacy?

Yes, the Diplomacy screen provides details on your relations with all other empires and pirate factions. It explains how each empire feels about you, and exactly why, i.e. the specific factors that make them like or dislike you.

[dingbat911]

ORIGINAL: elliotg
Initiating blockades against another empire will definitely make them dislike you [:)]

Each empire has a reputation - your noble and evil actions in the game affect your reputation for better or worse. Other empires view of you is partly influenced by your reputation. So if you do a lot of nasty things other empires will take a dim view of you, and may even gang up against you.

Also, when you appear overstretched in wars or trade sanctions against other empires, your enemies may take advantage of this and declare war on you when you least want it. So you should choose your actions carefully, unless you like full-on chaos of course [:)]

And the AI also takes their reputation and their own of others into account when declaring actions?
For example, if they believe that Empire B is not trustworthy and are building up a force close to them they might tolerate Empire A a bit more rather than engage hostilities?

[Gertjan]

Are the smaller AI players also inclined to form an alliance to weaken the strongest one or don't they dare to do that?

[elliotg]

ORIGINAL: dingbat911

ORIGINAL: elliotg
Initiating blockades against another empire will definitely make them dislike you [:)]

Each empire has a reputation - your noble and evil actions in the game affect your reputation for better or worse. Other empires view of you is partly influenced by your reputation. So if you do a lot of nasty things other empires will take a dim view of you, and may even gang up against you.

Also, when you appear overstretched in wars or trade sanctions against other empires, your enemies may take advantage of this and declare war on you when you least want it. So you should choose your actions carefully, unless you like full-on chaos of course [:)]

And the AI also takes their reputation and their own of others into account when declaring actions?
For example, if they believe that Empire B is not trustworthy and are building up a force close to them they might tolerate Empire A a bit more rather than engage hostilities?

Yes, to some extent. But there are a lot of different factors that might influence the actions of each empire. So even though an empire has a poor reputation, there might be some offsetting factor that leads one empire to tolerate them more than another empire.

[elliotg]

ORIGINAL: Gertjan
Are the smaller AI players also inclined to form an alliance to weaken the strongest one or don't they dare to do that?

Large empires that do not have good reputations tend to be envied by smaller empires. So that is one factor that can lead to alliances.

[Gertjan]

Thanks and good to hear! Good luck with the final stages of development.

[Webbco]

I have looked to see whether there is an answer to this in a different thread, but didn't see one - does the movement of planets, stars and moons have any strategic advantage for fleet movement etc? For example, if planet A is aligned in a certain way with planet B and C, fuel costs will be significantly reduced when travelling from planet A to planet C.

[elliotg]

ORIGINAL: Webbco
I have looked to see whether there is an answer to this in a different thread, but didn't see one - does the movement of planets, stars and moons have any strategic advantage for fleet movement etc? For example, if planet A is aligned in a certain way with planet B and C, fuel costs will be significantly reduced when travelling from planet A to planet C.

Not really - even a lot of in-system movement is done with hyperjumps. So travelling between planets that are a reasonable distance apart (in the same system) will initiate a hyperjump - thus the in-system planet locations don't make much difference in fuel usage.