>>37093Well as you are aware he said he made the game in the first place to scientifically answer the question of what space combat would look like, but I think because he has such a narrow focus he fundamentally fails to answer that question. Every battle in the game starts out with you and the enemy already in the same gravity well.
Well how the fuck did they approach the gravity well for days, months, years at a time without getting intercepted before that?
Also even some of his assumptions of the technical spaceship stuff is kinda off too. Like on the forums they point out that his assumptions for size of crew quarters is ridiculously small.
You mentioned radar, I think he might be right that IR is all you need and the way to go. But where the fuck is the ECM?
So my dream game, it's like Victoria in space. Try to approach everything realistically like no space strategy game ever does at all. It's literally Kerbal, Simply Rockets and this. So it would be kind of like Victoria except it would also simulate like corporations as their own entities. War would be an option but I wouldn't slant the game towards it and I'd try to mix in the realities of modern political consequences and war.
>It's my favoruite kind of sci-fi combat. But yeah the issue is that its massive wasted potential, the game could have been about fighting a war across the entire solar system, doing inefficient interplanetary transits in order to throw the enemy out of wack and gain position, stopping supply lines and starving enemy positions of resources they need to build good ships, sacrificing vessels with hundreds of crew as diversions with lasting consequences, bombarding asteroids with missiles and committing war crimes in order to win victory, having to make ship designs not just cheap but easy to manufacture, ships surrendering.The RP kind of stuff you're talking about Falling frontiers looks like it's doing somewhat, but it's an RTS that doesn't try to approach space realistically at all.