Yes, do tell please!

Because your smartass detection is off the charts?

which SB were you using? TEC or Advent?

im not sure about Advent, but TEC Beams and Missile should have been able to fire up...

if it was Advent, im not all that surprised actually... most of their ships dont have rear-facing weapons, and they barely have a missile equivalent, which makes them very linear in their thinking. all their SB weapons are designed to fight targets on the same plane as they are... they cant handle out of the ordinary... maybe something someone should look at and change...

oh, and Sith, just shut the hell up. you exploited a bug and are mouthing off about it, you obviously have little if any idea what you are talking about. Yes, i dont like using the Vasari SB as an Assault Cruiser personally, but it still works, and if you cant get it to work, maybe thats because there is no bug there for you to exploit.

If it was a real game tactic, that everyone knew about and could counter (somehow), then good on you for using your head, but because it was a bug, and you basically cheated (as in, played outside the conventional 'rules) you dont get any kudos.

not only do you sound like an asshole, but you sound like an asshole with a bad grasp of english, which makes you sound like an even bigger loser. so just quit while you are ahead.

what's the hotkey?!

Ehh, well, I didn't know the technical name, but the point is, that is what it technically is.  Why they didn't just make it a sphere, I'll never understand, but oh well...

At any rate, I am working how figuring out how to use the Z-Axis...  I've hotkeyed it, but I'm still puzzled on how to use it exactly...  Once I figure out how, I may or may not mention it to the community for the following reasons...

Pros: Would alert the community to such a thing and allow everyone, not just an elite few to do it

Cons: Would make static defenses useless  Now, you could send in planet bombers and just have them go over the top of the planet to bomb it.  Also, anyone who didn't use this would be at a severe disadvantage...

Yeah...  I know its a good tactic, but its also unfair to the defender.  Even with Entrenchment, its still not going to stop someone who can avoid everything you throw at them minus SC.  But really, just park a fleet of carriers/bombers on top of their planet and they won't be able to do a thing about it while you slowly kill off everything in sight.  If you want a quick way to level up caps, that's it.

If this became widespread, the devs would have to make the game fully 3-D.  Structures would have to be in 3D clusters and you would have to understand how to actually use the tool or you would be doomed.

I don't want to kill IC's business, so I want to keep Entrenchment viable, but once you know something like this and you are in a pinch, what are you going to do?  Die?  Or are you going to do this as a last ditch effort to keep yourself alive?  I for one would only use it as a last ditch, desperate act to save myself and not use it even after I regain momentum.  The problem is you can bet that people will use the Z-A as a new tool to defeat opponents.  Once someone knows how to use this, they will use it.  Some will use it in emergencies while others will abuse it.

Also, at SennKS, do you by chance have a replay of this game?  I would love to see this in action.

Okay, I would like to see that as soon as you can get it on here...  As far as telling people, I'm thinking this kinda is like Switzerland telling the world how to make an H-Bomb.  Sure, they know how, but they aren't going around telling every country to level the playing field.  The fewer countries that have nukes, the better.  Same thing here.  This is a cheap way to go about killing things.  I say, no we don't tell people in general.  It would just make it messier.  Most wouldn't use it, but some would which would yield abuse.  I mean, when on your last chance to make a stand, you can take all the cheap shots you want, but you don't do this because you can.  You do it because you have to.  That is my opinion.

In other words, don't tell people for their own good.

Well, I'll take a look at it later...  The PC has been commandeered, so I'm on my Mac.

But, I did figure out how to use it just now...  It is hard to use, but still, a lethal tool when used by someone who knows what they are doing...

you have to assign it manually

I just watched the replay.
I have four words, two for IC and two for those who use this shit.

IC - fix it.

abusers - kill yourselves.

@N3rull: yep...

@Whiskey:  But you just neutralized Entrenchment save for the Orky.  Only the orky is immune to this as it can rotate.  All else is doomed.

So that's why.

If IC makes defense 3D, then sure, go ahead, I'll be the first to mention this to the community, but until then, I'm not saying as many will just use it as defense, but some who learned because I said something will abuse it.  Hence why I'm not explaining it.

Z-axis would be a problem to keep, because FOR EXAMPLE how would you make turrets more useful then? They would be totally useless as they are.

Increase their range? That would defeat the purpose of LONG range frigates, which now outrange turrets (and that was one of their roles), leaving you with carrier spam.
You'd have to increase the range of LRFs in return, then Starbase's (because LRFs would be outranging SBs now).
Effect - everything shoots through the whole gravwell. Gravwells will no longer be battlefields that allow tactical movement, but empty wild west streets at noon with two fleets standing in front of each other with nowhere to hide, hoping to kill the enemy faster than he kills you.
You'd be jumping from one boxing ring to another. Meh.
Increase the size of gravwell to fix this? You would just loop the problem back to the first point. Only that all ships would now be half size and look like ants. AND fleets would take FOREVER to pass gravwells.

Vertical Cluster turrets? Nah. How would you destroy them? Say, we have three turrets vertically. They still have to be worth 1 tac slot, otherwise they aren't worth it. Each of them still has to be as tough as it is, otherwise they're useless (cause it's not all three that fire at one passing fleet).
Would they all go down when one is killed? Or not? If yes, it would be silly. If not, how would you replace 1 or 2 of them? By repairing debris which then reshapes into a turret? Or by placing another cluster of turrets? Would 1 of 3 turrets take 1 tac slot still, or 0.3333 tac slot? If 0.3333.. then one could put 30 turrets in one place by getting rid of the outer ones repatedly.
No, I don't like this idea, sorry. Too fouled up to make it right.

All that just to fix turrets. What about repair bays, SBs, nano jammers. All of them and more would lose their effectiveness if the enemy had a whole new dimension to maneuver around.

Not to mention that mines would become absolutely useless. In homeworld mines were free to place and they still were marginally used, mostly by AI.

No, I believe Sins would require a complete rework with many fundamental gameplay rules changed to fit full 3D.
If you just give Z-axis , some units will simply become useless unless you remake them completely, which will start a chain of other required fixes and Sins will end up as Hegemonia: Legions of Iron, a game that was dead a week after release.
Or as another Homeworld ripoff.

Z axis = can of worms.
Stay away.

PS. If IC is having troubles with balancing LRFs/Carriers over the past ... year(?), then I guess we shouldn't be so sure they would balance the game with Z-axis before the third world war.

Well, it is to some extent...  I mean, if your capitals are crowded in, its nice for the AI to say, "oh hey! I can just go under them."  But a player's voluntary control may not be good...