Posted: 16 Mar 2006, 16:50
Don't whine about double/tripple posts. We clean them up as soon as we see them.
Open Source Realtime Strategy Game Engine
https://springrts.com/phpbb/
Noone was whining about them. Noize was responding to two posts. One was .funkymp noticing how there was an error when you posted comments that might have caused me to post 5 times. The other was me asking for an administrator to delete my duplicate posts. There is really no need for you to assert your authority here.SwiftSpear wrote:Don't whine about double/tripple posts. We clean them up as soon as we see them.
i agree, if anything, cons veh are bad atm. Slow and costly and hard to build stuff with (they jam or get in each others way)Min3mat wrote:>,<
the nerf REALLY isn't needed!
thats a very interesting math, although remember that those 7 acvs had to be pumped out somewhere and thats precisly what i meant because you couldnt have been pumping out acv's and attacking units at the same time. (note: pumping out 7 acv's might , or might not be fast depending on the resources you have at the time)Egarwaen wrote:Why's it give you a disadvantage? Remember, with all the guards, you can churn out units very quickly. With seven ACVs guarding a Core level 2 vehicle factory, you get an ACV in 10 seconds and a Goliath in 17.5. Assuming that you're using the ACVs for L2 economy on top of a solid L1 economy...
Not math, I jumped into the game and tried it out in single player.Chocapic wrote:thats a very interesting math,
It's not particularly slow, especially since each unit can guard the factory as soon as it rolls out the door. So unless your opponent using the 1xACV+fusion+MMM strategy can attack and kill you in that window, using only the units his factory's pumped out during its idle time, before your production speed advantage catches up... Remember, we're assuming you're on equal footing up until then. The ACV tactic grows your economy faster, which means that even if you have a short initial production gap, you can catch up very quickly.although remember that those 7 acvs had to be pumped out somewhere and thats precisly what i meant because you couldnt have been pumping out acv's and attacking units at the same time. (note: pumping out 7 acv's might , or might not be fast depending on the resources you have at the time)
Spring bug.Peekaboom wrote: Furthermore, why is it that subs (except for the turreted "super" subs) do not shoot their torpedo's?
Make sure you don't have any data conflicts, like lose archives in the root spring directory, folders in the root spring directory that should be found in archives, or are playing a mod that is loading conflicting data (such as both xta and AA).FireCrack wrote:So, am i the only one experiencing a bugged catapult?
Didn't realize this before. It is intended that they consume the energy they make when moving. Because this isn't happening (which is an engine issue) I'd suggest significantly lowering the energy production of all non-aircraft mobiles to compensate. Aircraft do use the energy when moving because their state is set to active upon take off for wing animations.Egarwaen wrote:...Spring units don't seem to consume resources when moving...
the units have allways produced res, even in ota they did only in smaller scale. (go watch xta res income from con's and u'll see what i mean)Egarwaen wrote:It's not particularly slow, especially since each unit can guard the factory as soon as it rolls out the door. So unless your opponent using the 1xACV+fusion+MMM strategy can attack and kill you in that window, using only the units his factory's pumped out during its idle time, before your production speed advantage catches up... Remember, we're assuming you're on equal footing up until then. The ACV tactic grows your economy faster, which means that even if you have a short initial production gap, you can catch up very quickly.
As for why units produce resources at all, I don't know. Spring units don't seem to consume resources when moving, though some do when firing.
We're assuming that you get the cons after getting a solid level 1 econ. What's so hard to understand about this?Min3mat wrote:i mean u try getting 7 cons immediately you are toast unless the com is nearby making LLT or something, but u wouldnt have the m
Cons + MMM take less time to pay themselves off than a Fusion + MMM. And ACVs do make quite a lot of resources. This means that while they do "take a while" to pay themselves back, you're still better off in that respect than the guy who went fusion + MMM.cons are quite expensive and should make res, they make not that much, and take a while to pay themselves back...
Yes, I know. I've said so above. The issue is scale. Because of the amount of resources produced, relative to cost, they're currently a better buy than fusions + MMMs. Cut their resource production in half, and things become sane again.Chocapic wrote:the units have allways produced res, even in ota they did only in smaller scale.
No. Why would I? You tech to level 2 normally, then start using ACVs + MMMs (as necessary) for your economy. Besides, Construction Vehicles aren't really the problem. The problem is Advanced Construction Vehicles.are you gonna pump, as the game starts, 7 con's ? cuz my 7 flashes (actually more.. cuz the flashes are easier to pump then cons) will eat you for dinner!
Alternate Advanced Construction Vehicles and combat units. Each new ACV provides a big boost to your economy and boosts your construction rate. (TM has 14 guarding his L2 Vehicle Factory in that screenshot, which I think puts a Goliath's buildtime somewhere between 10 and 15 seconds and an ACV's between 5 and 7.)and there is that other problem , what will you do when the 7 cons are pumping attacking units ? have your econ stopped ?
interesting however, have in mind that a solar costs 141m and 700e or something like that, and a construction vehicle (not advanced) costs 191m and 3000e or something closeNo. Why would I? You tech to level 2 normally, then start using ACVs + MMMs (as necessary) for your economy. Besides, Construction Vehicles aren't really the problem. The problem is Advanced Construction Vehicles.
Construction Vehicle (Core): Costs 192m/3599e, Produces 0.4m/27eChocapic wrote:where is the construction vehicles are perfectly fine and adv arent ?