Please delete post. The links are broken, and information is outdated.

#1 Good stuff, as usual.

#2 That looks great.

#3 Oh my gosh your portfolio makes me want to remake Homeworld. Or just finish that game. I was crap at it. :P

#4 Looks like there will be no war game with these, since they all seem to lack any weapon systems. From what I could see so far all the ships don't have any weapons, just a lot like antenna like things, but nothing so far I could identify as weapons, no barrels, no missiles or missile-launchers/batteries, no bomb shafts, no laser cannons whatever.

PS: I have to correct myself, there are some ships that look armed, from the 33 models out of sketchfab, 4 seem to have weapons on it.

#5 That just means you can add your own....

#6 Smart excuse. ;) But there are certain reasons this is not a good idea, for example UV-map, object count/draw calls and of course the art style.

#7 Did you ever play Freelancer? The weapons mounted to hardpoints and were individual models unto themselves. While it's not the best solution for everyone and requires a bit more work it would still be viable for some game types. For instance - if you wanted to be able to upgrade or modify unit loadouts in your RTS.

#8 I don't see that many mount point on these ships neither, I think you just try cover up the fact, that the author did not think that much about weapons. Some of his ships have weapons, but the majority of them have none at all.

#9 I'm not trying to "cover up" anything - I'm saying that I don't think it's that big of a deal. I have no stake in this - I didn't make them, I didn't hire anyone to make them, and I don't make any money off of them or anything I say about them.

I think Vlad's work looks pretty good. I understand what you're saying and I agree, but for my purposes the lack of obvious weapon points wouldn't matter.

For the record, I like the way your work looks too.

#10 The discussion was not about the look, the look is totally fine, I just wondered why someone like him did not care about weapons, but maybe he is a pacifist.

#11 Does that make someone who puts weapon mounts on their vehicles imperialists?

#12 "Warmongers." I think "Imperialist" is a more specific type of "warmonger."

#13 I think it is funny that people's paradigm of weaponry is gun barrels. Look at submarines. They have no gun barrels anywhere, but can destroy whole cities. I can also conjure up theoretical weapons in my mind using today's tech that would not require any kind of outward indication of weaponry. In fact it would serve better for a large gunship to have these more toward the core of the ship so you cannot damage your weaponry so easily. I am thinking about interference energy weapons that don't "shoot" like normal weapons, but can destroy cities like nuclear weapons. I believe the Russians and unofficially the US have these types of weapons. The Russians were rumored to have tested these is some very public ways.

I am thinking a warmonger is attempting to take what someone else has: life, wealth, food, water, land, etc. Imperialist's tends to control whatever you have as it takes fewer resources. However, the end result is about the same. The subjugated people no longer own their: life, wealth, food, water, land, etc. I also don't believe outward signs of weaponry would indicate warmongership, or assume lack thereof would indicate pacifism. I was mostly trying to stir up trouble. ;)

#14 A warmonger is someone who wants wars - for whatever reason. Any reason to attack something or someone will do. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/warmonger?s=t

#15 Please delete post.
The links are broken, and information is outdated.