It won't slow by much, considering the huge difference in mass between an electromagnetically-launched projectile and the host ship. Especially if the ship is large. An A-10 ground-attack jet pilot does feel some recoil in flight when that huge 30mm cannon is fired, but it doesn't exactly stop in mid air.



If the enemy doesn't cream you before you get that close.

My main question is still... why would you choose to fight that close, when space is so vast, and under most scenarios you're going to be approaching from a great distance? Matching velocities for a close-range knife fight is much harder than zipping past with a huge difference in Delta-V, and just throwing everything you've got at the maximum targeting/engagement range (considering that lightspeed "fog" for knowing the enemy's position).

Ships might still have some kind of point defense, but I don't think it would get used much. The one scenario where I could see combat happening at short range, is if both sides are adopting a stealth strategy like modern attack subs... sneaking around while trying to throw off the minimum EM signature or other exotic stuff like Cherenkov trails or neutrino flux. That might get you close enough for a sudden knife fight. But that game only works if both sides want to play it. If the enemy wants to run away and fight at standoff distance, you're going to have to light up and chase him.

Once again not taking into consideration the vast differences in near- or super-light speeds and bullet speeds. And the difference between ship-disabling/destroying warhead and 30mm rounds.

If the warhead is launched straight ahead, I agree, the ship would not be slowed very much, especially with drives still activated. However, I find it very unlikely that a blind-fire rocket (until final approach) would only be capable of shooting in one direction. If the missile is launched from the side, you'll end up with a massive acceleration to the side. It's liveable and doesn't make much difference, but it is there.

I already stated why I would prefer to use beams: my ship will have more ammunition (near infinite, with the near because no energy source is infinite) than your ship and less momentum, therefore it will be easier to maneuver. Also, there is no dodging my lasers from close range, even if I can shoot down your missiles or dodge them (did I mention I have no reload time on my ship?). I don't have to worry about Newton's Third Law, while you do. And my targeting is more accurate.
With your blind-fire missiles at the light-seconds range that is allowable for laser-equipped ships, I have time to dodge, intercept, or interfere with them, on top of ship-based defenses. It's also more than possible that you've calibrated your blind-fire missiles to have a minimum preliminary burn time (probably to keep the explosion away from the launching ship), during which time contact with an enemy ship would result in no explosion due to safeties, and during which time your missile's path is pretty clear to me.

Well...I've been playing the original X-com UFO Defense since it came out and still play it to this day. This also includes a round of zork every once and awhile..I can't help but play some good ol' text based games. Also the ultima series, legend of kryandia, M-tech Earth Siege, and Earth Siege 2. I still love the classics. ok...some may not be "classics" but dammit..I thought they were fun.

Starcraft was a good game, good balance is what made it what it is. I also have to agree about the lack of variety..all my online games came down to rushing.

And yes games with lesser specs and a high degree of capability will sell many more copies as they can be ran on a wide variety of systems that will be found in many more homes then just those die-hards with every new gadget in their pc's. (crysis?)

Infefective weaponry and targeting systems such as what the Terrans had verses the Mimbari in Babylon5. You would need to get in close to hit the target and perhaps deploy nukes in suicide attacks. And yes the Terrans would get mowed down using such tactics but there is safety in numbers!

I didn't bother to read all the thread, but I can say that Star Craft is indeed one of the most awesome games created so far, the graphics and all that doesn't matter, it's the gameplay, the story and the way things are, I like this game in anyway, and it is a shame that I bought this new computer which all my old games don't work on.

I like C&C3 and Half Life 2 also, but there is nothing like the Old games... I am talking about Star Craft, Command and Conquer Red Alert, Homeworld, and many more.

Strange, do you know Windows XP has a compatibility option for old programs? I find it works very well.

bumping...

why, if i might ask, do you keep bumping this thread? just curious.

I want everyone's opinion on starcraft

It's a great game, but I never could get any good at competitive multiplayer. As others have said above, it's too much of a click fest for me to enjoy when it gets too fast. Additionally, my roommate is somewhere between Greek legend and minor deity when it comes to Starcraft, so it got kind of depressing to be repeatedly raped.

I can imagine that. That's why I play chess no more.

I spent many, many hours on Starcraft, but that is over now. There have been many advances in RTS since then. I would write more, but I hear CnC3 calling me....

CnC3 is really cool. I like it very much. But I can hardly play it. I am not fast enough with the mouse. And I can not play it in a bed or in the train. That is why I like turn based strategies like GCII.

if anything is overrated its the importance placed on graphics nowadays. Potentially great games are ruined because devs are forced to focus on making their games pretty rather than core gameplay elements.

i'd say that's an out-growth of FPS fans, with additional contribution from flight sim and racing gamers. personally i've liked a few good flight/race games, but back on consoles (i own MarioKart 64).

when it comes to strat games, graphical performance has a different meaning for me. for me the biggest issue is being able to comprehend what i'm seeing. SMAC was kind of frustrating to me because it was somewhat hard to tell how a unit was armed. GC2 actually has similar challenges. GC2 however gets bonus points for having totally custom ships and so much that can be mod'ed.

from the previews i've seen of SC2, i'm more than satisfied with its graphics. RTS and TBS games are more cerebral than FPS and other games that are more about reflexes. the more info you can clearly and quickly pass on to the human player, the easier it'll be for the player to enjoy the game.