View previous topic :: View next topic |
this vote will decide about the future of this invention: |
this can be added to the game |
|
33% |
[ 3 ] |
it needs some changes but it is a good invention |
|
11% |
[ 1 ] |
i will post the needed changes here |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
no good try another one |
|
55% |
[ 5 ] |
|
Total Votes : 9 |
|
Author |
Message |
tec_server Technology Bot

Joined: 04 Nov 2002 Posts: 1746
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject: leichter bomber |
|
|
leichter bomber (class 1 ship)
starts a bombing raid on 1 destroyer and destroyed it T
attack/life: 0/1
manpower: 9
researchtime: 1 d
buildingtime: 12 h
human-technology
needed research:
gravity
battle details:
reduces LP to 0 of 1 destroyer in the enemy fleet in class 2 but some ships are immune against destruction
battlemessage: "o.k. ... ships"
(battle engine syntax: destroy,enemy,1,2,destroyer,o.k.) |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
Rubens Admiral

Joined: 20 Apr 2003 Posts: 1422
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject: Re: leichter bomber |
|
|
tec_server wrote: | leichter bomber (class 1 ship)
starts a bombing raid on 1 destroyer and destroyed it T
attack/life: 0/1
manpower: 9
researchtime: 1 d
buildingtime: 12 h
human-technology
needed research:
gravity
battle details:
reduces LP to 0 of 1 destroyer in the enemy fleet in class 2 but some ships are immune against destruction
battlemessage: "o.k. ... ships"
(battle engine syntax: destroy,enemy,1,2,destroyer,o.k.) |
Doesnt sound that bad. We just need to adjust it to be similar than the apollo |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
O-siris Admiral

Joined: 11 Aug 2005 Posts: 803
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well yeah it doesn't sound bad i never said that but we don't need it |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
Rubens Admiral

Joined: 20 Apr 2003 Posts: 1422
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do.
If you are e-ray as example you cant make apollos...but you can do this.
My suggestion is amke the ship e-ray or kazuula so those ships can build the ship |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
O-siris Admiral

Joined: 11 Aug 2005 Posts: 803
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hmm never looked it from that way
e-ray doesn't have a good c2 attacker indeed |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
Vrictus Admiral


Joined: 01 Aug 2005 Posts: 662
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what about eagle/campaign ship fleets.
or do you mean indirect c2 attackers
? |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
Rubens Admiral

Joined: 20 Apr 2003 Posts: 1422
|
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously indirect.
If so nanite have troikas, MRB, apollos etc and all they works perfect...So i think this isnt such a bad ship |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
O-siris Admiral

Joined: 11 Aug 2005 Posts: 803
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
true true for e-ray this isn't a bad ship indeed |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
Rubens Admiral

Joined: 20 Apr 2003 Posts: 1422
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
E-rays and kazuulas.
Many questions.
1-Its possible to add this before the rounds begin?:/
2- If i am not alone when i say "i agree with this" why the poll is like that?
3- The ones who said not have a good explanation?
4- Who invented this or both ships?It would be good that he appears and tell us why he made up this for... |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
kamekaze6 Admiral


Joined: 12 Aug 2003 Posts: 1312 Location: Malta
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like this it could work but needs tobe tweaked. I think if the price was changed to say 6 and it had 2 lpitwould be good _________________ STFU N00B!!!!111!1!
Click!! |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
Jort Admiral


Joined: 06 Jan 2005 Posts: 1264 Location: Amsterdam
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mjx1 wrote: | who the hells inventing this *** |
hmmmm i think a german does. |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
spacetrace Board Admin


Joined: 24 Dec 2001 Posts: 1624
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
this one is good enough for a planet. the price seems ok to me, just the name has to be changed...
here is my suggestion for it:
tactical bomber
This heavy loaded fighter-class bomber carries a big load of explosives and is capable of destroying one class 2 ship. Beside the pilot, co-pilot, navigator and steward there are several aiming control officers needed.
( it has also no laundry robot ) |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
O-siris Admiral

Joined: 11 Aug 2005 Posts: 803
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No laundry robot where do i have to wash my big underpants than
lol serious now:
thx admin  |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
Rubens Admiral

Joined: 20 Apr 2003 Posts: 1422
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spacetrace wrote: | this one is good enough for a planet. the price seems ok to me, just the name has to be changed...
here is my suggestion for it:
tactical bomber
This heavy loaded fighter-class bomber carries a big load of explosives and is capable of destroying one class 2 ship. Beside the pilot, co-pilot, navigator and steward there are several aiming control officers needed.
( it has also no laundry robot ) |
But that race?...So e-ray will forget about sabotage fighters...i mean why would be best to use Sab. fighters beside this? Make this kazuula!
You should change the syntax then...It says it just destroys a basic c2 ship, you are saying any c2 ship...
Why do we have to change the name? If we didnt invent this...i dont get that yet.
If so... "Uncovered destructor" |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
spacetrace Board Admin


Joined: 24 Dec 2001 Posts: 1624
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
O-siris wrote: | No laundry robot where do i have to wash my big underpants than
|
just a running gag , check out the plasma gun ship  |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
O-siris Admiral

Joined: 11 Aug 2005 Posts: 803
|
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
yes i know  |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
mast3r w1nn3r 2nd Lieutenant


Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Posts: 30
|
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i like it good enough for class one not too good not too bad  |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
mast3r w1nn3r 2nd Lieutenant


Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Posts: 30
|
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i like it good enough for class one not too good not too bad  |
|
Back to top » |
|
 |
|