Children of a Dead Earth: realistic space warfare game

weissel · June 3, 2016

Sooo ... let's see.

On 25.5.2016 at 6:46 PM, tater said:

You keep putting words in my mouth. I said that a lookup table might be every bit as accurate as a poor "simulation," where "simulation" is here defined as a computational damage model making simple assumptions at each step (say following a particle as is passes through a target).

You insinuated many times CoaDE's damage handling is bad, without ever offering anything that would support your claims. No look at the code, no quote from anyone who played the game, nothing at all.
How would you like if I insinuated you did your work shoddily? Especially when it's clear I have no idea at all what you do and how well you do it?

See? That is why your constant putting down of CoaDE is grating on me. You assume the worst and then think it is fact.

And yes, "a lookup table might be every bit as accurate" ... you are right. You "might" win the national lottery if you buy a single ticket. Once in your life. Might. Likely? No. Not at all. So either you are weasel wording for effect, or ...

Have a look at how War Thunder does it's damage model (explained, Youtube). This is a damage model that makes very simple assumptions at each step and follows a particle (projectile) as it passes through the tank. I would like to see your lookup table that will, for any given projectile, hitting any given spot at any given angle on a tank, shows how it proceeds through the tank and damages stuff --- without damaging causality. Note: we are not talking about how likely it is to hit and damage a tank, if a gun with this-and-that qualities shoots at it, that's a statistical question, we do not talk about the "realistic outcome" of a thousand shots (which a table can likely handle just fine, statistically, for a 100 vs 100 tank battle), we talk about one specific shot against one specific tank!

So ... where's your 'every bit as accurate' table? Or do you prefer to cede that point?

On 25.5.2016 at 6:46 PM, tater said:

A particle can be any size, I'm using the term for ease of discussion, nothing more. We're dealing with space, and astronomical velocities, so anything smaller than masses that matter for solar systems is a "particle." "Macroscopic" to me would relate to the general picture of significant events being modeled, ignoring the low-order stuff that doesn't matter (paint chips, etc). We can pick another indeterminate word if you like, for whatever particle size has non-trivial damage, if it was entirely natural we might use micrometeorite/meteorite/asteroid, but we don't have vague terms past small, medium, and large. Note that I'd call anything heavier than Helium a "metal," as well (old astronomy habits die hard).

Also, "anything smaller than masses that matter for solar systems is a "particle."" would imply that you make no difference between a large flour speck, a 1mm ball bearing, a 1cm object, a 10 cm aluminum projectile, a 50cm steel ball, a Mercury capsule, the complete ISS, a fully loaded Saturn V before launch and an asteroid 10km across (which really do not matter for solar systems) trying to smash through a fuel tank.

Would you agree that this includes all between "no damage" and "utter destruction"? And that both of these ends do not happen to need fluid dynamics to handle the impact damage?

Would you also agree that there's nothing but confusion to gain in using 'particle' instead of, say, 'projectile' or 'thingie'? And that 'particle' is not helpful for "impacts where fluid dynamics will make a difference"?

"a non-microscopic particle" (your original term) and "macroscopic" would, in context of a particle, simply indicate the ability to see them with the naked eye. Making them a large particle

Your 'significant events' is a better definition, but
a) 'significant' has so terribly many meanings (just ask NASA and see the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Chapter 7, page 191 (15th page in this PDF) if they can stick to one meaning)
b) we are just trying to find out what these events would be anyway, a Saturn V impacting would be significant, but not for fluid dynamics
c) where do we draw the line between non-trivial damage and trivial damage? A single speck punching a small hole in the Whipple Shield? Then what happens after millions of trivial damage specs, once lots of specs have no Whipple shield to slow them?
d) where would your lookup table manage to differentiate between them, especially in the light of c)?

And I would like you to please stick to the lingo commonly used for space craft, space stations and rocketry. I do not think that talking about if burning hydrogen and metal is better than metal and metal or metal and metal, or metal and metal, for that matter, even though metal can easily be found on the moon,or the use of using metal versus metal or metal for optical lenses, solar cells, or isolators. Of course, I do assume here you want to be understood by other people.

On 25.5.2016 at 6:46 PM, tater said:

My entire point in this discussion is to suggest that unless this can actually replicate known data accurately, we have no idea how accurate a simulation it is, and it might in fact be no better than a lookup table with "intuitive" damage filling the slots. It might be far better, but we won't really know.

Choice a) simulate a very complex system using the known laws of physics, find complex, counter-intuitive interactions (developer says, that's what's happened all the time).

Choice b) make something up that seems "right" --- if you are trailing in an orbit, speed up to catch them, for example. Which is just the intuitive thing.

Here's my game: Spartan phalanxes battle WWII machine gun nest groups over wide open fields:
Spartans: hundreds of people, proper shields, proper weapons.
MG nests: 10 or 20 people, no shields, knifes on a stick as best weapons and these "MGs".

Intuitively it's clear that 10 or 20 archers cannot kill a phalanx, their arms grow tired, and then they have to run or die. And the phalanx has shields. And these mythical MGs of yours are just like archers --- they shoot something a fair distance, maybe even a couple of lance throws of distance. So, to be "fair", let's have these new-style archers have extra-strong arms, to even out the battle. And maybe reduce the size of the phalanxes shields, as they are totally arrow-proof.

And for a piece of entertainment (aka a game that may or may nod make a nod at the real world) that's fine. Choice b) it is! Nobody cares! It's fun, it's fair ... what else could you want? Any simulation might not be more accurate, you know? And anyway, it's a game. As 'realistic' as chess. (Which is actually a good example: simple rules, very complex interactions, studied for many centuries.)

However, if your aim was (and the developer's clearly stated aim is) to understand what the conclusions for a given set of rules (say, physics, working technology, ...) are, then that's simply not good enough. You may find to your surprise that a really fast and heavy arrow can pierce armor. Ballista, Scorpio ... now, look at the Polybolos and notice what would happen if that was faster. Quite faster. Much faster --- OK, you'd need some better power source than one man's arms. But a weapon that could fire armor and shield piercing shots really really fast, say 1 per second, would be tearing up a phalanx if it was able to shoot for a time. And you'd notice as the phalanx player that you'd need another technique. Maybe use really heavy shields that are not pierced most of the time (-> tanks). Or split up and run --- which is better without armor --- to zerg rush them (-> modern infantry is not bullet proof). Or maybe have some archers yourself that can make the enemy stop shooting one way or the other (-> combined arms). You'd be able to try all that out in simulation, even when you could not test that mythical "MG weapon" against the real world.

So, for the stated goal of learning about space combat, what is better --- even if you surmise (not knowing about gun powder[1]) you'd need a lot of oxen for driving the capstan to power such a machine. Or that you'd have to build some gravity power system (and needed lots of slaves to haul up water or stones to drive it) and that hence it'd only work well in fortifications. It still is vastly closer to reality than "intuitive" damage tables. Even though it's wrong on many things.

[1] a problem CoaDE is unlikely to have since it concentrates on technology we know works

On 25.5.2016 at 6:46 PM, tater said:

If the interior is not actually modeled, then it's functionally a lookup table, right? X cm particle enters crew compartment at Y km/s that is not modeled fully down to an X cm scale. The game has a check for crew compartment damage, and applies it. That's not substantially different from a miniatures game, it's just likely finer grained (the ship might have many thousands of hit areas instead of hundreds or fewer).

If the interior is actually modeled, it's still functionally a lookup table. A 3D table encoding what is damaged (and likely, in which way) if something passes through there. Say a steam pipe or a cable tree.

And actually ... modeled down to X cm scale when the projectile is X cm? That is definitively not fine grained enough. What happens if the projectile passes through some cable tree? Does it cut all of them? Or does it only clip it and cuts some of them? That can be a huge difference, won't you agree? Especially when the projectile is not 1mm, but 20 cm across ...

And look up Renegarde Tech (a fan made damage resolution system for Battle Tech drawing from Renegade Legion): you've got a (2D) grid of boxes for hit points, each weapon does a specific pattern of damage, 'crit damage' is when you reach a grid box containing something important --- no crit rolls, no lookup table for damage (only for which body part is hit). Here you have a causality of hit and damage in form of the grid even if said grid is not really comparable to the physical layout of the mech. (Which is kinda hard with a "roll dice, look at table" damage model.)

And you can even have a lookup table without having any areas. Think of D&D and "2D6 +2" damage: it's a table with entries 4 to 14, where each entry says what happens (by coincidence, you lose as many hitpoints as the entry number) --- no area, just one hero/monster/being.

On 25.5.2016 at 6:46 PM, tater said:

The extent to which this damage model mimics reality is the quality of the simulation. Since we have little real data, it is by definition speculative past the range for which we have data. I have no problem with this, while you seem to be insisting that it is a great simulation without evidence. I am making no positive claims whatsoever, as I have said a few times, it might be a great simulation, it might be no better than a lookup table in a board game mapped to correspond to whatever real data we have on one end, and it might in fact be worse than that table. Short of real data, there is no way to tell.

I am merely pointing out that it would be strange to bend over backwards to simulate current weapon technology and their scaling (and worry about sloshing and baffles in tanks, too, and N-body simulation) and skimp on damage resolution. Why would they?

Whereas you make no positive, but lots of negative claims. With no evidence I can discern.

The quality of any simulation is "fit for the purpose" and nothing else!
A simulation how a car deforms during a crash, running for days per crash, may be very good for the purpose of studying crashes and making cars safer and utterly terrible for the purpose of entertainment as a game.

The stated goal of the simulation is to find out (aka research) how space combat would work, assuming the current knowledge of physics and weapon technology is correct or at least correct enough. The developer says the simulation has surprised zir over and over, giving zir new insights. This is evidence that the simulation is at least good enough for those insights, and the results it delivers are logical, even if non-obvious. (Any developer getting a strange result would check that the reason for said result is not a bug.)

I understand you know some astronomy.
Has anyone ever held a thermometer into the core of the sun? No? But how do you know the temperature of the core, there is no real data!
How long does it take a photon from the center of a star to the surface? How do we know? Anybody ever tagged a photon and sat there with a stop watch? Or maybe that was simulated?
What happens when galaxies cross paths? Nobody's ever seen more than a snapshot. And you know how a snapshot can seem to show things that are completely different --- so no real data. But maybe we should just use whatever somebody with little knowledge of the details thinks is 'intuitive'? Cause we'll not know if the simulation is doing it right --- we've observed gravity mostly on our sun system level, not on the level of galaxies.
People have been investigating Lagrange points before the 20th century, long before anything went into space (never mind orbit!) All they had was maths and physics. Would it be correct to say they simulated the stuff?

On 27.5.2016 at 11:05 PM, KSK said:

A large mothership with drones may be a wonderful fighting machine on orbit but if I can whack it with something fast, heavy or nuclear before it ever leaves the atmosphere, then I'm not going to care.

I strongly suspect that orbital mechanical duels between spacecraft are only going to be an extremely small part of a space war, no matter how scientifically accurate.

Ok, so please set up vessels over every planet of KSP's solar system so that every point of the planert is covered and reachable within at most 5 minutes for your fast, heavy or nuclear stuff. Tell us, how easy that is, how many craft you need ... and consider, that unless you are in control of the planet (by occupation or whatever means) or willing and able to wipe out everything that might be a danger, like

launching missiles and drones to spoil your vessels' day (if you can launch motherships, you can launch these with ease)
Ground based laser systems w/adaptive optics to transfer power to their own craft --- and to sensitive spots of your craft
fighting with drones controlled from the planet's surface, while your vessels must be manned (light speed limitations)
If they have any satellites in orbit, these might just contain a surprise rocket or coil gun or laser, if they don't, you are oppressing them and might as well occupy them outright ...

Also, you want to rotate crew, refuel, replenish food and movies, ...

In short, while you are right, if you can smack it while it launches, you win, I do not see how you can be in a position to do that, yet not be able to simply occupy the planet or bomb it into submission.

On 29.5.2016 at 0:56 AM, Accelerando said:

However, any future history calling itself "accurate" to some degree [...]

I do not see CoaDE claiming to be a future history, nor claiming to be accurate as a future history. I may be missing where the developer claimed it was ... can you give me an URL? As I understand it, it's a simulation of space combat to see how that would work and what would not work, not a prediction, nor a simulation, of the political and geographical landscape of the future. Not even one of 'this is one possible, logical path'.

On 29.5.2016 at 0:56 AM, Accelerando said:

how does one propose to build large-scale space infrastructure up enough to create heavy-duty space warships if Earth itself, likely the site of your entire starting industrial base and supporting population for a long time to come, is in jeopardy? This premise, which judging from its name CoaDE presumably shares with many other SF stories, always mystifies me in its cognitive dissonance:

"Earth is f****d and everyone is dying; let's harness the ruined global industrial base to crank out rockets to build giant spaceships with lots of guns so we can shoot them at each other."
"Sir, all the factories are burning and the entire population is rioting, starving, or evacuating their homes in the face of warfare and disaster--"
"GIANT SPACESHIPS WITH LOTS OF GUNS"

I guess we'll see how that works out, anyway.

Have you recently researched the history of the settlement of the Northern American continent and how part of it became independent from the Kingdom of Great Britain? I understand they were putting up resistance against their entire starting industrial base and supporting population even without said base being f****d and dying, not even weakened!

When in history have people not fought wars, even, nay, especially when it made little sense to do so? Do you really, honestly, believe that there will be no Osama, Putin, Erdogan, etc etc etc etc in the future? No people believing their culture/religion/race/hairstyle makes them superior, they need to rule everyone or make them their slaves or that they have the god-given duty to save the souls of the infidels from eternal hell (even if that means torturing their bodies to death, but then what is a couple days, months, years, decades in dreadful, screaming agony against an infinity not spent in hell)?

When have there been trading fleets without means of protecting them? And when has there not been trade, when stuff could be bought and sold for a profit? And would a planet with a lesser industrial base not have a need for stuff they cannot produce?

So what if a giant 'dinosaur killer/mass extinction event' meteor impacts on Earth and causes the environment to turn to be sorta hostile to life.
Is it so out of character for humans to think that, since they cannot get X from Earth any more, they could try your place, and since unlike Earth you don't have that military weight, they might be able to force it?
Or the remnants of the military forces (or private armies and their (former?) multi-billionaire) of Earth trying to find a new home and privileges, paying with services ... or trying to subjugate you? That is, if they don't go for plundering since they (think they) have nothing to lose?

If Earth is dying, you should make damn sure your space fleet is in good shape! A power vacuum draws in all kind of unsavory characters.

And you can guess that whoever settles all these places will tend to separate by ethnicity, history, language, culture, religion and so on and so on --- just look at Pakistan and India! --- so that there will not be animosities between different settlements, especially since too many humans are less than tolerant towards those unlike themselves. Lots of conflict potential, and without a strongman (say Earth) keeping the peace there will be conflict at times.

On 29.5.2016 at 0:56 AM, Accelerando said:

To follow along with tater's neat conclusion to this mess of a discussion, CoaDE is a "simulation" in the sense that SimCity or Dwarf Fortress is a simulation -- it takes a set of extremely abstracted assumptions and interacts them with one another to produce interesting results that may square with reality to some degree, but that doesn't make it a military-grade simulation. This is why I always chuckle when hard SF creators purport to be objective in some way when in reality they're writing down a list of (perhaps reasonable, but hardly objective) assumptions and dressing it up with pretty polygons to look like a spaceship.

"tater's neat conclusion" is not even touching the history described in CoaDE (whatever that history may be).
What tater "concludes" is that, not knowing anything about the actual damage resolution of CoaDE, it must be bad, the code must not include things he thinks are critically important, and (lately) that while the simulation may be vastly better than a made-up lookup table, then again it may not and we "cannot know" how good the simulation is against real life space battles (due to lack of the latter).
Of course tater has also admitted that to make a lookup table with realistic results, we'd have to calibrate it against real life space battles ...

As to assumptions, I understand that physics-as-we-know-it and real, current weapon technology are hardly objective, just as the universe (and politics, and physics, and technology) displayed Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica or Lord of the Rings.

curiousepic · June 6, 2016

Nikolai · June 6, 2016

Fantastic. It's hard not to be excited for this game's eventual release. (Would you consider selling to GOG as well? I prefer their DRM-free policies to Steam.)

Just out of curiosity, which music did you use for this video?

curiousepic · June 6, 2016

Neither the game nor the video are mine, just posting them here. Check out the links in the OP if you want to talk to the creator; he's fairly active on his blog and steam.

Edited June 6, 2016 by curiousepic

Diemosthenes · June 6, 2016

The music used is Amy Returns by Scann Tec. It's also very likely the developer will sell through GoG.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Diemosthenes

HebaruSan · September 23, 2016

According to a notification email I received from Steam today, this game is now released.

kunok · September 23, 2016

The first first impression is:

what less than 150 mb?????

That's in reality in my current state an advantage because my hdd is almost full, I wasn't expecting to be able to try it, well happens than I will try it

Edited September 23, 2016 by kunok

weissel · September 24, 2016

2 hours ago, kunok said:

The first first impression is:

what less than 150 mb?????

First impression is:

- how do I move maneuver nodes timewise

- where is the 'closest encounter' marker?

- I wish KSP had such an exponential maneuver node drag handle - mm/s can be done, and hughe changed too

- the auto-adjust (a symbol pops up at the right place on the orbit in spe) to intercept, fly by and join orbit (where possible - you have to get close to the orbit - and the target has to be there for intercepts and fly-bys) is nice and generates a number of burns to adjust things. I wish there was one for inclination matching.

- the "project course onto the inclination plane of the other object" is coo and valuable

- apo- and periapsis as well as up and down node respective the enemy are shown, but there's no "click to display their data permanently"

- ripping someone's reactor radiators off is a good reason to think of electrical storage and heat sinks … or at least backups. No power means lots of things don't work.

- there is the standard design for warships, with 3-6 weapon turrets in a sort of "weapon ring" as broadside. Quite a few also havebow guns. But some crazy designs (armour only one side; a really tough "head" (60+ cm armour, usual is 2-6 cm) and no protection for anything behind the head at all) are "pre-designed" ships.

- CoaDE shows the maneuvers in length and direction as orange arrows

- how do I tell my drones, who having a tiny target area, outrange the latter's heavier weapons in effective fire, to hang back and keep range, instead of going for a close, very fast encounter, speeding past and having not the fuel to slow down and reengage the target (which is dry)?

Calculation do not need much space - just lots of CPU - and the game does not use many textures nor pre-rendered movies or detailed locations. KSP has lovingly textured and modelled Kerbals, VAB interiors, (100+) parts, different surface textures on the different biomes and planets, etc etc.

CoaDE does have minimal textures from what I have seen. And I guess many tanks and tank like objects just have a base colour and light from sun and planets etc applied.

So why not?

But then I remember the time when many a game came on a single 360k floppy and you did not install it, because your computer would not have a hard drive.

Or a bit later, when you might install a huge game from 2 or 3 1.4 MB 3 1/4 inch floppy disks[1] on a spacious (and that's not ironic!) 40 MB[2] hard drive.

I played a moon lander game (display height, velocity, fuel reserves, you enter the fuel == velocity change to burn, game advances to next second) on a machine that could store 256 commands (not one more), had a 6 digit (0-9A-F] output and a hex keyboard as input, was programmed by hex codes … and let me discover that a) suicide burns were effective, b) the game sucked, because it assumed you could burn as much fuel as you wanted at any point, so it was way too easy to 'cheat' in that way. I could have improved the program (after all, I had to key it in to play), but back then I didn't have the urge.

So, while 150MB looks tiny today, game quality and enjoyment do not correlate with download size.

[1] which took a minute to read! - unless they were formatted in such a way that the next track started not at the same place, but a bit later, so the head could pick it up without waiting for a full spin, so you could read and write the floppy in about 30 seconds. Today's hard drives can stream data at 100-150 MB/s … and SSDs can be much faster still.

[2] Megabytes. Not Gigabytes or Terabytes, children. Megabytes, and you had an extra card in the computer to talk to the disk.

Superfluous J · September 24, 2016

My first impression: No Multiplayer.

I'm not big on Multiplayer (but as I said when this first popped up, this isn't really my type of game anyway) but it seems that all this game will "discover" about space warfare is how to trick whatever preconceived notions were programmed into the AI when the game was made. Or, if the AI learns somehow, players will "discover" how to train it to work poorly.

Cydonian Monk · September 24, 2016

First impressions: It's very well done for what it is and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. I'd like to dig around more in the ship designer, but so far I haven't entirely got that figured out. I, too, really want multiplayer out of this and hope it becomes a thing. I suspect the campaign and AI battles will grow old quickly..... Though I may have a different concept of "quickly" than most.

Also: I don't follow directions very well:

Spoiler

Campaign Mission Three is [apparently] the point in the "tutorial" that teaches you all about learning to match orbital inclinations, which is a silly thing to do when firing projectile weapons at an enemy. That extra 1.5km/s in relative velocity will shred ANYTHING.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Cydonian Monk

regex · September 24, 2016

I don't see why everyone is so surprised by the game's size on disk. The art assets are pretty much non-existent and all of the 3D stuff looks procedural, I'll bet you planet textures are like, a quarter of the download at least.

Anyway, I'm envious, can't pick it up quite yet.

kunok · September 24, 2016

Well I really was expecting that the final version would have better textures. And there is a lot of bad or almost no graphics games outside there that takes lots of disc space. The current trend I feel (as an user) is that because the hardware is less limited than the old days they tend to non-optimize things

Not that it really maters of course.

I'm liking the game, I just need some re-adaptation from KSP

Whirligig Girl · September 24, 2016

I have a lot of mixed feelings about CDE, but I've been having a lot of fun being the first modder of the game. With no tutorials or documentation, it's all new territory.

This was the first planet I made:

I have found a lot of interdependence and pickiness in the game's config files. Removing planets is tricky because you have to remove every single reference from the campaign mode levels.txt, and you can't just remove it or the game crashes.

If I can figure out a good thing to do with the planets, I will add the whole stock system. Until then, I'll probably just stick to Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus.

On 9/24/2016 at 1:41 AM, regex said:

I don't see why everyone is so surprised by the game's size on disk. The art assets are pretty much non-existent and all of the 3D stuff looks procedural, I'll bet you planet textures are like, a quarter of the download at least.

Anyway, I'm envious, can't pick it up quite yet.

As long as you're OK with really ugly looking planets and space, you'd love CDE. From my (still relatively short) time in the game, it's pretty fun, but has some major problems and should be an early access instead of a full release. And we all know how much you love to complain about problems :wink: /s

To at least try to correct some of the graphics issues (namely the lack of textures for Pluto and Charon, the darkness and shininess of Venus' clouds, and the reversed shininess on Earth's brown seas and clouds) I have already begun to make this mod:

Edited September 25, 2016 by GregroxMun

regex · September 24, 2016

21 minutes ago, GregroxMun said:

As long as you're OK with really ugly looking planets and space, you'd love CDE.

Yeah, gameplay is what's most important here. There's a reason I still load up Minecraft, terrible coding and all.

21 minutes ago, GregroxMun said:

From my (still relatively short) time in the game, it's pretty fun, but has some major problems and should be an early access instead of a full release. And we all know how much you love to complain about problems /s

:rolleyes:

It's a one person team AFAIK, which means no code reviews, UI feedback, etc... I expect there to be problems, but the performance specs are so low I can excuse that. vOv we'll see, I'll probably pick it up on Monday.

21 minutes ago, GregroxMun said:

To at least try to correct some of the graphics issues (namely the lack of textures for Pluto and Charon, the darkness and shininess of Venus' clouds, and the reversed shininess on Earth's brown seas and clouds) I have already begun to make this mod:

Good on you!

Whirligig Girl · September 24, 2016

Wait, I hadn't realized it was really only one guy on the development team. Even more reason that the game should have gone to Early Access before it was released.

EDIT:

A new Dead Earth. The old one was nasty looking and boring. I wanted something that still looked aesthetically displeasing and nasty, but in a good, scary, oh-god-my-beautiful-blue-marble-what-happened kind of way.

Edited September 24, 2016 by GregroxMun

Andem · September 24, 2016

I don't remember If I've posted in this thread before or not, but this looks promising! I'll definitely have to take a look at this some point soon.

Whirligig Girl · September 25, 2016

Full Kerbin System.

Nicholander · September 26, 2016

ss_2910b91209d08b63be633af870b4ed27d0eeb

ss_709112cb4872e474f97806767e33d0b52a8eb

Link here: http://store.steampowered.com/app/476530/

Just, woah. Looks EPIC. :0.0:

CAKE99 · September 27, 2016

Yep, I can't wait to get it, BTW there's already a thread,

@Red Iron Crown

Red Iron Crown · September 27, 2016

Merged in another thread. This game looks great, putting it on my wishlist.

HebaruSan · September 27, 2016

Scott Manley took it for a spin:

Valerian · September 27, 2016

Downloading it immediately, I feel like a kid at christmas right now

EDIT: nice, I won't have to make a PlanetShine mod for this game, it's already stock

Edited September 27, 2016 by Valerian

regex · September 28, 2016

Just picked this up today, feels like I'm looking at a game from the early 2000's. That's not bad at all, tbh, I'm used to KSP amirite?

@GregroxMun I need those textures plz (or tell me how to make them, should I catch up in IRC maybe?), seeing Ceres and Pluto in such ... disarray makes me not want to play.

curiousepic · September 28, 2016

Here's my piece on the graphics: http://childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/thread/131/love-graphics

Bill Phil · September 28, 2016

I'd love to pick this up. Can't at the moment, though. I saw Scott Manley's video on it, and I'd like to take it for a whirl.

Children of a Dead Earth: realistic space warfare game

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation