306 replies to this topic

[Zeta1127]

Why are the names of the various Imperial Assault Vehicles, specifically the PX-10 Compact Assault Vehicle, the QH-7 Chariot Light Assault Vehicle, and the A5 Juggernaut Heavy Assault Vehicle, formatted the way they are? I have only ever seen them named the Compact Assault Vehicle/wheeled PX-10, the Light Assault Vehicle/repulsorlift QH-7 Chariot, and the Heavy Assault Vehicle/wheeled A5 Juggernaut.

[Phoenix Rising]

Canon is totally inconsistent on this point. Within the same line: CAV/w PX-10 and PX-4 MCB. Unclear meaning of the slash designation: HAV/wheeled A5 and HAV/Transport B5. I had to make a call for consistency, and the standard way is backwards.

[Zeta1127]

Ah, I see, just curious.

Personally, I would just ignore the B5 Juggernaut anyway since there are so many problems with the name in the first place, and just call them QH-7 Light Assault Vehicle/repulsorlift, A5 Juggernaut Heavy Assault Vehicle/wheeled, etc. instead.

Edited by Zeta1127, 30 April 2012 - 03:06 AM.

[Phoenix Rising]

That's not the best example, coming from FoC. Is the LAAT meant to fit the locomotor naming scheme? That's another inconsistency, if so. Besides that, the names are long enough without it.

[smashedsaturn]

I posted on here earlier about the galactic view lag, I believe. Bottom line a suggestion from me about a version 1.3, would be very simple: Units, features, etc., are fine as they are now; what would make a very good 1.3 is solving the galactic view lag issue. I read on here about possibly a patching via RAM to work around modding the .exe, and another possibility of modifying the .exe in some way directly. Of course, that is frowned upon by LA, so distribution by "alternate means" was brought up. Dunno if this is do-able, but it is the single biggest thing to tackle and single biggest gain with a future v1.3 of PR that I can see.

Basically, I think the mod is great so far, excellent even and I love it. But I have stopped playing it after a week or so; cannot play with the lag as it is, and I have more than ample of a system to handle the game, as I'm sure most people do by now. Honestly, I weep at the greatness of the mod being hindered by how the game was designed in the first place. Even back in 05-06 whenever the game was made, wasn't dual cores or higher coming around by then and should of been developed to be a multithreaded program? *sighs*

while I am all for patching mid ram I think that would be a feature for 3.0 not 1.3

[Phoenix Rising]

I don't think either of those options are viable. We have other ideas on how to reduce galactic lag for v1.3 though.

[Darth Stalin]

One question: are the LAATs available to buy in 1.2 or the player has only those that are within his starting forces?
I've not seen the possibility to "invent" them, so I wonder...

[Piet-Tia]

I remember from another topic that those were described as starting forces only.

[tdragonblood]

Maybe I'm not familiar enough with Empires at War, but I don't know if there's a way to create/maintain/lock formations. Maybe i've been playing too much Total War, but watching my Star Destroyers and Frigates get all mixed up results in some messy warfare.

I think one thing I'd like to see is someway to control the launching of starfighters from battleships. Its a bit annoying when I send 3 star destroyers across the map, only to see them deploy starfighters that get left behind unless I tell them to join.

Again, maybe I'm unfamiliar with EaW functions, but Is there a way to zoom out of the Galactic Conquest map (even further, like an expanded minimap) so I can actually see what is going on? The expanded Galactic map makes it really hard to see everything going on.

[evilbobthebob]

Unfortunately, all three points are something of a downside for the game engine of EaW. It doesn't support proper formations (though ships form up roughly in-game). Fighter launches can't be controlled by the player. The current galactic camera isn't zoomable, but we may be able to add that functionality (though it's very, very unlikely).

Edited by evilbobthebob, 19 May 2012 - 12:39 AM.

[Phoenix Rising]

I don't think it's possible to set the galactic camera for dynamic zoom...? At least with XML. Not sure if POSITION_CAMERA works in galactic.

[Chih]

I'm a total war player too

Best way to control the ships is to not have all of them selected and moved at once. Just fighters/transports/corvettes and some small frigates are easily moved around en-masse, but anything bigger and micro managing each ship is needed for best results. For proper facing to strengthen formations further I recommend the use of right clicking on the ship. For an ISD for example, clicking a target to attack and then facing the ISD towards the target results in the best damage (otherwise the ISD will try to fire a broadside). Facing AT-AT's in land combat while micro managing them to hold a line formation can work wonders as well. Atleast with some lighter vehicles or infantry to blast anything that tries to get through.

As for star fighters, I usually ctrl + A and then click on the icon of the star fighters I want selected. Although in a lot of battles I first bring in any carriers and let them deploy fighters in one area while I scout around and attack weaker targets with other ships, then I go back, select the spawned fighters and attack the stronger ships and installations.

Managing units in EAW the same way one manages units when playing multiplayer in total war games (atleast post-ETW due to rifle/archer firing zones) goes a long way. It's all about good micromanagement.

Edited by Chih, 19 May 2012 - 01:01 AM.

[tdragonblood]

Aw bugger. Oh well, guess I'll make do. Is it possible to change the minimap on the galactic map? It's pretty ineffective and inaccurate.

And this might go along with the formation thing, but is there a way to tell my AT-ATs on land to face one direction and stay that way? I was slightly amused/annoyed watching my AT-ATs in circles to cahse some infantry around while tanks were coming down the chokepoint lane, lol.

In regards to the Galactic Conquest Lag, is it possible to make the background more static? Like instead of having a layer of nebula floating on top of a layer of stars, just flatten it and make it static? I'm not sure if that will help the lag, but it might for scrolling on slower computers (like mine, lol)

Oh and for the record. You guys did an absolutely fantastic job. This TC is off-the-chart amazing. I literally gave up on Star Wars a few years ago (sad i know), but this totalllly reminded me what I loved about it.

[johnchm.10]

lol. if you really want a good laugh, watch an AT-AT try to circle at the double game speed, and throw in the Benny Hill song

[Chih]

And this might go along with the formation thing, but is there a way to tell my AT-ATs on land to face one direction and stay that way? I was slightly amused/annoyed watching my AT-ATs in circles to cahse some infantry around while tanks were coming down the chokepoint lane, lol.

In regards to the Galactic Conquest Lag, is it possible to make the background more static? Like instead of having a layer of nebula floating on top of a layer of stars, just flatten it and make it static? I'm not sure if that will help the lag, but it might for scrolling on slower computers (like mine, lol)

Nope, for now you'll just have to keep telling them where to face and stop them when they want to move. Helps to not let any enemy units get behind the AT-AT.

PR will fix the lag in 1.3. In the meantime, I'm working on a submod of sorts that as a byproduct fixes the lag in atleast GFFA. I should be done in a few days and will then upload my modified xml's

[evilbobthebob]

Aw bugger. Oh well, guess I'll make do. Is it possible to change the minimap on the galactic map? It's pretty ineffective and inaccurate.

And this might go along with the formation thing, but is there a way to tell my AT-ATs on land to face one direction and stay that way? I was slightly amused/annoyed watching my AT-ATs in circles to cahse some infantry around while tanks were coming down the chokepoint lane, lol.

In regards to the Galactic Conquest Lag, is it possible to make the background more static? Like instead of having a layer of nebula floating on top of a layer of stars, just flatten it and make it static? I'm not sure if that will help the lag, but it might for scrolling on slower computers (like mine, lol)

Oh and for the record. You guys did an absolutely fantastic job. This TC is off-the-chart amazing. I literally gave up on Star Wars a few years ago (sad i know), but this totalllly reminded me what I loved about it.

There might be some fixes we can make to the galactic minimap. The only real problem with it currently is that the camera box doesn't scale properly. Question: would players like the minimap to be much larger? I'll make a poll about it, because while we can't add many UI elements, we can scale the existing ones.

As for the moving background, we are almost certain it doesn't contribute to lag in any meaningful way, since that would be GPU lag (i.e. graphics card) whereas the CPU seems to be the limiting factor in our tests.

Thanks for your support and feedback

[Phoenix Rising]

And this might go along with the formation thing, but is there a way to tell my AT-ATs on land to face one direction and stay that way?

If the animation were changed, you could force it to deploy (assuming the head doesn't start to rotate 360°).

[Darth Stalin]

Some ideas from my point of view to player setup as the Empire:

1. maybe give the player more money at start, but reduce the shipyards already existing in place - for example on Byss; what use would be of that planet with some bonus to "level 5 shipyard" but with only 2 slots left for building these? (Byss does have 2 x Golans, 2 x lvl 1 shipyard and 2 x lvl 3 shipyard - maybe this is a good selection for AI, but not for player seeking good place to set his lvl 5 shipyard.
The same applies to Kuat - they were producing mostlu capital ships, so placing there 2 x lvl 3 shipyards is a waste of space. If a player wants to have a "specialized lvl 3 production planet" he may choose Yaga Minor to produce there a bunch of Acclamators and Dreadnaughts....
Anyway, I did that in tweaking my starting Imperial campaign, yet not all in case of Byss.

2. What is the maximum number of space structures per planet - 8 slots?

3. I suggest allowing N'zoth possession of at least lvl 4 and maybe lvl 5 shipyards - all in all, there has been an Imperial shipyard capable at least of repairing capital ships up to the size of Executor-cass SSDs. Maybe just with 4 slots, but anyway...:
http://starwars.wiki...iki/Intimidator
http://starwars.wiki...6th_Sector_Army
http://starwars.wiki...i/Black_Fifteen

As with all Type II yards, the facility possessed nine shipways arranged in a massive square formation. It was not capable of constructing Star Dreadnoughts, but it was possible to dock these massive ships at some of the facility's outward berths, and the Intimidator was moored here after she was transferred to Koornacht from the Core for the final stages of her fitting-out.

[Darth Stalin]

Some more suggestion (including a "double" one):

1. Add proper icons to Imperial heroes:

a) Mulchive Wermis (Navy officer with Devastator ISD-I):
http://starwars.wiki...Mulchive_Wermis

b) Lord Tion (I don't know what ship he uses as he's currently under construction):
http://starwars.wiki...iki/Tion_(Human)

Currently they've got the "generic" icon of an Imperial Fleet Commander, but there are their pictures availablen on Wookiepedia to be used in making proper icons.

There's a problem with Harbid, as there are no pictures of him...

2. Add Imperial Heroes - Engineers/Managers:
a) Tol Sivron - head of the Imperial Department of Military Research and manager of the Maw Installation [homeworld: Ryloth]:
http://starwars.wiki...wiki/Tol_Sivron

b) Qwi Xux - weapons designer, working hard in the Maw Installation, under Tol Sivron [Homeworld: Sevacros?]
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Qwi_Xux
With these characters added the research of high-end Imperial ships would go faster.

Edited by Darth Stalin, 24 May 2012 - 08:51 AM.