Recent topics Log in
Search Profile
Memberlist Usergroups
Log in to check your private messages
Register
shieldcruiser
Post new topic   Reply to topic
SpaceTrace Forum Forum Index » New Technology Inventions » shieldcruiser
View previous topic :: View next topic  

this vote will decide about the future of this invention:
this can be added to the game
46%
 46%  [ 6 ]
it needs some changes but it is a good invention
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
i will post the needed changes here
7%
 7%  [ 1 ]
no good try another one
46%
 46%  [ 6 ]
Total Votes : 13

Author Message
tec_server
Technology Bot
Technology Bot


Joined: 04 Nov 2002
Posts: 1746

 Post Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 12:20 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

shieldcruiser (class 3 ship)

cruiser with a stronger shield


attack/life: 100/150
manpower: 100

researchtime: 1 d
buildingtime: 12 h


human-technology
needed research:
fanatic warfare

battle details:fights
(battle engine syntax: f)
fights
(battle engine syntax: f)
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rubens
Admiral
Admiral


Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Posts: 1422

 Post Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 5:10 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

is a mosquito class 3 but this is a joke is useless need 50 ap or best no ap and more lp and less mp if have 0 ap or more mp if have ap
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Nemesis
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Posts: 452
Location: Denmark

 Post Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 7:49 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

What?
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger ICQ Number
Zamprano
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 07 Mar 2003
Posts: 68
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

 Post Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:12 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

what did you just say?
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
KEPcH
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 487

 Post Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:21 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

I believe less mp should do it.
Or maybe more lp.
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rubens
Admiral
Admiral


Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Posts: 1422

 Post Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:29 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

i only say no need Attack points (ap) but if hve attack points should be 110 the Man Power (mp) need o ap and more lp Life points
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
KEPcH
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 487

 Post Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 10:22 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Emmm... dude, class3 ship with 0ap and more lp?
Doesn't that sounds like a flamingo (0ap/500lp)??
And it only has 100mp.
Dude, before you try to write some comment, make sure you know what you're talking about.
Aight?
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Achilles
1st Rear Admiral
1st Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 334
Location: Wisconsin-USA

 Post Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:48 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

I don't think any of you are taking the time to read this ship thoroughly. The syntax states that it fires twice. That is a lot bigger of an issue than the 50% increase of lp.
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger ICQ Number
Nemesis
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Posts: 452
Location: Denmark

 Post Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:14 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

I haven't really read the ship yet, I just wanted to know what Rubens was trying to say
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger ICQ Number
KEPcH
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 487

 Post Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:57 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

The syntax is wrong indeed, Achilles.
It should only attack once.
Didn't notice the mistake.
Thanks for the rectification, man.
But except for that, what do you think?
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
darklim
Admiral
Admiral


Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

 Post Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 1:43 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

i don't like this ship
Why you need a stronger cruiser?
The basic ships are the best of all times

_________________
The Spam Master of the Spam Alliance
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rubens
Admiral
Admiral


Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Posts: 1422

 Post Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:19 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

i knowi am bad with the english and i cant know what are u saying, i think a cruser 50/300 120 mp or less .

2 this invent = 240 mp 100/600
4 cruser= 240 mp 400/400
vs u destroy a cruser +60 but he destroy a ur invent -120 but with look dont destroy any ship or u win +60 or lose 60 but if balanced beacause if he have less cruseros u can win. and should be reconstructuble because dosnt istoo powerfull, think this 7 dreaghs and a major rcontructor, this is too good, this is the fleet of i am here.... a fighter adestroyer and 9 cruseros and a dreghnaut 1 cylo`ps and 1 minnor for whta only a dreagh? because if u fight with a mothership as enemy the dreagh is obligate to attack and destroy ship in class 1 and 2 do 100 damage and help to destro the mothership
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Nemesis
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Posts: 452
Location: Denmark

 Post Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 2:39 pm    Post subject:

I think it looks ok (when you correct the syntax )
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger ICQ Number
Display posts from previous:   
SpaceTrace Forum Forum Index » New Technology Inventions » shieldcruiser
Post new topic   Reply to topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Solaris phpBB theme/template by Jakob Persson
Copyright © Jakob Persson 2003



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Impressum