70 replies to this topic

[feld]

I always just use the garrisoned fighter squadrons to protect me from enemy fighters. I don't really like using the Dreadnaught- or Recuscant-classes, because of the obvious lack of heavy weaponry. Yes, they have some, but not enough for my taste. They just don't stand up to the heavier ship classes like the Imperial-class and whatnot.

Oh, I don't use them as mainline Fleet combat units unless I've got hordes of them as part of my unit setup (i.e. Thrawn Campaign).

I'm curious: do you find the standard Imperial fighter loadouts enough to defend against Alliance fighters? I usually find my fighter screen destroyed unless I bring a few Blastboat squadrons along...any hints?

[Kaleb Graff]

That's because the AI doesn't know how to use fighters.

[Tropical Bob]

When they bring along any sort of blastboats of their own, my fighters usually do get totally owned. But...meh.

[muneyoshi]

I always just use the garrisoned fighter squadrons to protect me from enemy fighters. I don't really like using the Dreadnaught- or Recuscant-classes, because of the obvious lack of heavy weaponry. Yes, they have some, but not enough for my taste. They just don't stand up to the heavier ship classes like the Imperial-class and whatnot.

yeah.. I use my fighter spawns for that as well.. but the reclusant is a very nice ship.. a one on one? no.. but as part of a fleet action the ship does very well.. at max upgrade the ship has a very long reach for what heavy guns it does posses.. and the laser power to back up the fleet against bombing runs

[feld]

I always just use the garrisoned fighter squadrons to protect me from enemy fighters. I don't really like using the Dreadnaught- or Recuscant-classes, because of the obvious lack of heavy weaponry. Yes, they have some, but not enough for my taste. They just don't stand up to the heavier ship classes like the Imperial-class and whatnot.

yeah.. I use my fighter spawns for that as well.. but the reclusant is a very nice ship.. a one on one? no.. but as part of a fleet action the ship does very well.. at max upgrade the ship has a very long reach for what heavy guns it does posses.. and the laser power to back up the fleet against bombing runs

Folks,

I just noticed how off topic the post became...sorry. I apparently failed to notice that everyone answered my original question on page 1! I split off a topic on Imperial Anti-Starfighter Tactics because I remain interested in learning from the more experienced players what works and what doesn't. Figured it might be a good topic for some other n00b to search on later...

r/
feld

Edited by feld, 09 December 2008 - 03:53 PM.

[Phoenix Rising]

Thanks for modding! Without civvie game developers' games my job might drive me nuts!

Heh, good to know my career path of making (or playing, as most people would think) games is actually beneficial to society, on some miniscule level.

Happy to, but with a disclaimer: muneoyshi's absolutely right that modern naval tactics have little to do with SW tactics. So I'm not sure how much my opinion counts in this case.

I think of tactics as being more of a way of being able to assess and respond to certain situations than executing specific maneuvers and whatnot. So in that sense, they, along with strategy, have broader applications in life insofar as refining your thinking process. I like to think of PR as glorified chess, whereas EaW was glorified rock-paper-scissors: the rules are a lot different, but the process is the same. In that respect, you are qualified .

I read the stuff, but I don't know the EU near as well as I did when it was only WEG and the Zahn Trilogy.

But you recognize the importance I put on WEG and the Thrawn Trilogy (and Dark Empire, for that matter). All three form the foundation of the EU, all three were in the first release of PR.

1. Consistent set of stats for the ships.

I'm very happy with having converted ships with all different kinds of stats into a standardized system with which to compare them. I just hope all the numbers don't overwhelm people (I'm pretty left-brained myself).

2. Weapon Arcs:

Unfortunately, this is much of the reason why hardpoints aren't targetable...

Given that I feel the biggest strength of the mod from the standpoint of varied tactics lies in the way that each ship has its own "flavor" leading to many choices for the player, my suggestions are mostly ways to improve ship distinctiveness.

The current units that you're playing with should be kind of bland compared to the changes I've since made to make them even more unique.

1. Capships performance gradualy degrade with damage

This sort of amounts to destructable hardpoints, since that'd be the only way to accomplish it.

2. Some form of limited player controlled hardpoint targeting:

I'm definitely open to the possiblity, but doing it for every weapon would be a herculean task (targeting or destroying, basically the same difference). Last I checked, there were over 6500 hardpoints .

4. See if the AI can get smarter with tractor beams:

Anything along those lines is really outside the realm of what PG coded for us to use.

I've tractored a corvette with an ISD and had nothing happen...

Yeah, that's the engine laughing at our attempts to mod it...

The apparent lack of dedicated anti-starfighter weaponry on many of the big ships doesn't help (and never made much sense to me). The main reason I was so happily surprised by the Dreadnought Heavy Cruiser was that the quad lasers eat starfighters quite nicely.

I see a definite trend in weaponry as ship classes get bigger: they become more dedicated to anti-starship duty. Corvettes are kind of a mixed bag, but look at the rest. Frigates have a lot of lasers and few turbolasers, cruisers are pretty even on both, destroyers have few lasers and a lot of turbolasers, and capitals have only turbolasers.

I guess the reasoning is that a handful of bombers can't possibly do enough damage to destroy a capital, so there's no reason to bother wasting emplacements on anti-starfighter weapons. Out-of-universe, it doesn't help that just about every new source blindly copies the original WEG specs, which aren't always perfect, so we're kind of stuck with their system for better or worse. That's one reason why the prequel ships are so different.

As for the Dreadnaught, it's sometimes listed as having an entirely-turbolaser armament, but I believe lasers are more reflective of the "original" design, due to age and the state of space combat (big starships being out of favor, starfighter swarming).

That's because the AI doesn't know how to use fighters.

They do now. Sort of. At least they'll dogfight.

Edited by Phoenix Rising, 09 December 2008 - 07:04 PM.

[feld]

2. Some form of limited player controlled hardpoint targeting:

I'm definitely open to the possiblity, but doing it for every weapon would be a herculan task (targeting or destroying, basically the same difference). Last I checked, there were over 6500 hardpoints .

6500. Ouch. If you decided to do that, would the task be something that you could farm out? I'd certainly volunteer some time. On the other hand...the details of picking what should be targetable would have a huge play balance effect. I imagine you'd want to do that yourself.

The apparent lack of dedicated anti-starfighter weaponry on many of the big ships doesn't help (and never made much sense to me). The main reason I was so happily surprised by the Dreadnought Heavy Cruiser was that the quad lasers eat starfighters quite nicely.

I see a definite trend in weaponry as ship classes get bigger: they become more dedicated to anti-starship duty. Corvettes are kind of a mixed bag, but look at the rest. Frigates have a lot of lasers and few turbolasers, cruisers are pretty even on both, destroyers have few lasers and a lot of turbolasers, and capitals have only turbolasers.

I guess the reasoning is that a handful of bombers can't possibly do enough damage to destroy a capital, so there's no reason to bother wasting emplacements on anti-starfighter weapons. Out-of-universe, it doesn't help that just about every new source blindly copies the original WEG specs, which aren't always perfect, so we're kind of stuck with their system for better or worse. That's one reason why the prequel ships are so different.

Sounds as good as anything else I've heard. In universe I can see canon arguments on both sides of the issue: an ISD seems like it could (and should) mount truly insane numbers of AS weapons ... but then why didn't AVENGER use them against the Falcon in EP IV? (The blasts that come from AVENGER, for instance, are pretty huge so I'm assuming they're turbolaser bolts). Out-of-universe: I also think that RPG stats are biased towards small groups of players in small ships just like X-Wing/TIE Fighter stats are biased towards starfighters...play balance and all. No fun to die instantaneously if you're not Han Solo or Luke...

r/
feld

[muneyoshi]

my two cents on limited hard point targeting.. yes I agree it should be limited.. if you look at the size of these ships you'd never be able to knockout ALL it's guns before you just made so many giant holes in the hull the ship explosively decompresses.. perhapes having a fraction of the weapons.. say 1/8 targetable? them.. and maybe special weapons.. like proton beams.. tractor beams.. maybe make one for sensors to serverly limit it's fow reveal.. engines to really slow it down.. even in vanilla you take out engines it can still move albit slowly.. perhapes make several engine HP's targetable reflecting multiple engine ports and slow it down with each one knocked out?

[feld]

my two cents on limited hard point targeting.. yes I agree it should be limited.. if you look at the size of these ships you'd never be able to knockout ALL it's guns before you just made so many giant holes in the hull the ship explosively decompresses.. perhapes having a fraction of the weapons.. say 1/8 targetable? them.. and maybe special weapons.. like proton beams.. tractor beams.. maybe make one for sensors to serverly limit it's fow reveal.. engines to really slow it down.. even in vanilla you take out engines it can still move albit slowly.. perhapes make several engine HP's targetable reflecting multiple engine ports and slow it down with each one knocked out?

All agreed. But I don't know the limits of EAW/FOC HP targeting and this pretty small mod team's time resources:
-can you always damage HP or do you need to knock down shields first?
-can you make a unit with a mix of targetable and non-targetable hardpoints? (aside: is that even the right terminology?)
-6500 is alot: is this really the best use of PR's time? I don't know the answer to that...I was just thinking about adding more tactical options. Ultimately: his mod, his decision.
-6500 is alot: can we as a community help him if he decides to go for HP targetting? This could be an organizational nightmare all on its own...

r/
feld

[Kaleb Graff]

my two cents on limited hard point targeting.. yes I agree it should be limited.. if you look at the size of these ships you'd never be able to knockout ALL it's guns before you just made so many giant holes in the hull the ship explosively decompresses.. perhapes having a fraction of the weapons.. say 1/8 targetable? them.. and maybe special weapons.. like proton beams.. tractor beams.. maybe make one for sensors to serverly limit it's fow reveal.. engines to really slow it down.. even in vanilla you take out engines it can still move albit slowly.. perhapes make several engine HP's targetable reflecting multiple engine ports and slow it down with each one knocked out?

All agreed. But I don't know the limits of EAW/FOC HP targeting and this pretty small mod team's time resources:
-can you always damage HP or do you need to knock down shields first?
-can you make a unit with a mix of targetable and non-targetable hardpoints? (aside: is that even the right terminology?)
-6500 is alot: is this really the best use of PR's time? I don't know the answer to that...I was just thinking about adding more tactical options. Ultimately: his mod, his decision.
-6500 is alot: can we as a community help him if he decides to go for HP targetting? This could be an organizational nightmare all on its own...

r/
feld

There have been a lot of topics about this, but some things are clear:
1. We can't do multiple engine HPs. We can mix targetable and non-targetable hardpoints.
2. Having targetable hardpoints would waste a lot of firepower.
3. Ships would be covered in green, and it would seriously hurt graphics. I would like to keep it as-is.

[feld]

There have been a lot of topics about this, but some things are clear:
1. We can't do multiple engine HPs. We can mix targetable and non-targetable hardpoints.
2. Having targetable hardpoints would waste a lot of firepower.
3. Ships would be covered in green, and it would seriously hurt graphics. I would like to keep it as-is.

Thank you! I had just finished a multi week long project reading every post (and I mean that literally) in the PR News, General Discussion, and Community Suggestion forums before asking. Yours is the clearest set of answers to my hardpoint (HP) questions I've seen. Please note that I'm not posting in the suggestions forum b/c I'm still trying to understand the problem.

Major HP posts for future reference (will update as more found and possibly make a summary post so other n00bs have an easier time finding it):
May 2 cents - hardpoints May 08
Suggestion for hardpoints
Note on Hardpoint (short discussion on how to enable them)
No Hardpoints balance issue, Inquiry (6 Aug 2007) (some early PR thoughts on HP issue)
Maybe have hardpoints but... different (29 May 2008) (a little more discussion on the canon of targeting cannon ... or hyperdrives as it were)
Battleship of the Republic (13 Mar 2007) (First mention from PR that I can find of making hardpoints indestructable)


Since you seem to know how HP work and the history: I got some more questions that weren't answered by my reading.

1. Wasted firepower: I saw that in earlier threads but don't understand why this is necessarily serious. People seem to want to use the HP feature to meet one or both of two desires: capability degradation with damage and targetable systems. I see why the wasted firepower could be a problem if you make every gun on the ship targetable. But it could be a feature vice a bug for targetable systems because it penalizes the targeting player for attacking the HP which IMO is good. In my mind, the majority of the ship's systems should not be specifically targetable, especially on a dedicated warship.

2. Too much green: This would kill the idea for me too. But I don't understand why it has to fill the interface with green. Does the engine show both targetable and non-targetable hardpoints? Is it impossible to mix targetable hardpoints with the damage current system?

r/
feld

Edited by feld, 10 December 2008 - 09:19 PM.

[Kaleb Graff]

1. The amount of firepower ships pump out would mean that various hardpoints, when destroyed, would likely waste a lot of firepower. If you don't mind that, then go ahead. In fact, if you want to, make a hardpoint mod. I certainly wouldn't use it, but if you want to, you could.
2. It doesn't show not-targetable hardpoints, so you could solve that. However, I don't know how the ship hardpoints would behave.

[coinich]

1. The amount of firepower ships pump out would mean that various hardpoints, when destroyed, would likely waste a lot of firepower. If you don't mind that, then go ahead. In fact, if you want to, make a hardpoint mod. I certainly wouldn't use it, but if you want to, you could.
2. It doesn't show not-targetable hardpoints, so you could solve that. However, I don't know how the ship hardpoints would behave.

I experimented with hardpoints for a tiny bit. What was interesting was that ship health was independent of the cumulative hardpoint health, though some ships seemed to have the same values for each. I wonder if some kind of script could be made to hunt down types of hardpoints and replace them with a set health value.

I still don't get what you mean by waste firepower, however. :(

[Kaleb Graff]

After a hardpoint is destroyed, all shots targeted at that hardpoint that would hit later miss, and are useless.

[feld]

After a hardpoint is destroyed, all shots targeted at that hardpoint that would hit later miss, and are useless.

But isn't that only a problem for the rest of the volley that destroys that particular hardpoint? Does the AI continue to target dead hardpoints after their destruction?

In this post, PR said:

I have an idea of how to create a ship that can be killed without touching the hardpoints, but it remains untested.

Know if what that idea was or if he had any luck with it?

Edited by feld, 10 December 2008 - 06:56 PM.

[Kaleb Graff]

After a hardpoint is destroyed, all shots targeted at that hardpoint that would hit later miss, and are useless.

But isn't that only a problem for the rest of the volley that destroys that particular hardpoint? Does the AI continue to target dead hardpoints after their destruction?

In this post, PR said:

I have an idea of how to create a ship that can be killed without touching the hardpoints, but it remains untested.

Know if what that idea was or if he had any luck with it?

It's what we have now. While it's only a problem for the rest of the volley, some volleys are really big, and if it takes 4 torpedoes to destroy one, what happens to the other 20? (Assuming a Y-wing squadron)

[feld]

It's what we have now. While it's only a problem for the rest of the volley, some volleys are really big, and if it takes 4 torpedoes to destroy one, what happens to the other 20? (Assuming a Y-wing squadron)

First off, thanks for being willing to answer what must to you be already answered questions.

Graphically, do the overkill shots just hit the same location and blow up but do no damage? Or do they just fly through the model and come out the other side?

Sounds like overkill probably makes it impractical to use HPs for simulating the graceful degradation due to damage. However, it might be a bonus if we just want to use HPs to give players the ability to target a limited number of specific systems. I think overkill plus limiting the number of targetable HP will impose a cost for the attack on HP targeting that will minimize the balance effects while allowing canonical attacks on specific structures to produce a tactical benefit.

Where does the overkill damage go? In-universe, it represents the cost in time, ordnance, and lives of a precision strike.

Let's say my Rebel task force is cornered by an ISD and I decide I want the ISD's sensor ability reduced before the bulk of the fleet engages it (say I know I don't have enough heavy metal to win a slugging match, can't retreat, and taking out his sensors reduces the ISD's too-hit chance and gives my capitals a chance to win the slugging match). I've got a Y-wing squadron so I send them out ahead to target the sensor HP (just an example, don't even know if a sensor HP can be implemented).

In PR that means that I select the Y-wings, right click on the sensor HP (or HP's), the squadron goes to do it's attack run, whatever can shoot at them shoots at them, some of them die, the rest launch their fish, and let's say it takes 6 torpedoes to blow up the sensor dome. The other six do nothing. But the ISD can't aim as well and now, maybe, my pitiful little band stands a chance of beating it in a stand up fight. So I've gotten my tactical reward (a chance to win) and paid my tactical costs (maybe those torpedoes that missed would've taken its shields down enough that I still could've won my slugging match).

In-universe, I'll argue that those wasted torpedoes represent:

- improperly aimed shots ("Stay on target!")
- improper settings on the weapon rendering it ineffective against the desired target type ("Negative, it didn't go in, Just impacted on the surface")

It's not all bad that weapons which *hit* the target don't do damage due to overkill. There were often spaces on an armored warship (less so modern ones) that you can totally destroy while not reducing the ship's combat ability or structural integrity. Case in point: crew quarters, bulk stores, cargo, some hangar space. On RL battleships, there were large areas of the ship that were essentially unarmored to save weight. They could do this because these were not critical in combat (small boat storage, some quarters, galley, some machine shops, etc). The crew fixed these after the fight. ISD's appear to have a smaller fraction of their vital systems exposed than any wet Navy ship battleship. But they have plenty of similar non-combat critical spaces aboard (crew quarters for upwards of 35,000 people and bulk storage for several prefabricated garrison bases). That's lots of room to absorb overkill.

r/
feld

[bob345]

Alll the hardpoints don't need to be targetable just the shields engines and specail wepons(super lasers and proton beams) That way the if all the targetable hardpoints are destroyed the ship wouldn't be, and the hardpoints would just be a strategic option to destroy.

[Phoenix Rising]

-6500 is alot: is this really the best use of PR's time? I don't know the answer to that...I was just thinking about adding more tactical options. Ultimately: his mod, his decision.

My biggest concern with this would be whether or not I would have to add a unique collision mesh for every single gun on every single starship model in order for it to work. I'm not sure if that's the case or not, but I'm worried that using only the main collision mesh would allow you to target a certain hardpoint and be able hit the ship anywhere in order to damage it. If so, that would mean a lot of extra work on top of the 200k lines (yes, 200,000) of hardpoint code.

1. We can't do multiple engine HPs.

Doesn't FoC allow for it? I mean, it wouldn't work as expected, but it could be done.

1. Wasted firepower: I saw that in earlier threads but don't understand why this is necessarily serious.

Let's say you task an X-wing squadron to attack a random turbolaser emplacement. The squadron fires 24 torpedoes, 2 of which are necessary to kill said turbolaser. The other 22 pass harmlessly through the hull without doing any damage. IMO, that makes hardpoint targeting extremely lame. It kind of comes back to the point you made about the firing arcs not going through ships.

[feld]

-6500 is alot: is this really the best use of PR's time? I don't know the answer to that...I was just thinking about adding more tactical options. Ultimately: his mod, his decision.

My biggest concern with this would be whether or not I would have to add a unique collision mesh for every single gun on every single starship model in order for it to work. I'm not sure if that's the case or not, but I'm worried that using only the main collision mesh would allow you to target a certain hardpoint and be able hit the ship anywhere in order to damage it. If so, that would mean a lot of extra work on top of the 200k lines (yes, 200,000) of hardpoint code.

1. We can't do multiple engine HPs.

Doesn't FoC allow for it? I mean, it wouldn't work as expected, but it could be done.

1. Wasted firepower: I saw that in earlier threads but don't understand why this is necessarily serious.

Let's say you task an X-wing squadron to attack a random turbolaser emplacement. The squadron fires 24 torpedoes, 2 of which are necessary to kill said turbolaser. The other 22 pass harmlessly through the hull without doing any damage. IMO, that makes hardpoint targeting extremely lame. It kind of comes back to the point you made about the firing arcs not going through ships.

Got it. With those engine limitations (overkill weapons pass through the model or could be attacked from through the model) my interest in HP targetting is officially dead. I intend to write this up for stick-ification (probably in community suggestions) b/c the new release will probably mean lots more new players: they're going to ask. Like me. Again. And again. And again. Normally, I'd go with AnakinSolo and say "please use the search feature". But I did and still didn't understand the whole picture until just now when Kaleb and PR cleared it up.

r/
feld