306 replies to this topic

[Stormhawk]

There are earlier holes in the tech trees to fill in first.

Which ones? Just wondering what new units are making their way into the mod. The Majestic Class Heavy Cruiser, maybe? The MC90, perhaps? Those would be very cool.

Edited by Stormhawk, 19 June 2011 - 11:08 AM.

[Zeta1127]

The only two things that affect PR adding new units are models and GUI space.

Edited by Zeta1127, 19 June 2011 - 06:18 PM.

[Phoenix Rising]

Which ones? Just wondering what new units are making their way into the mod.

It's honestly not even on my radar at the moment.

[Hanti]

The only two things that affect PR adding new units are models and GUI space.

http://s37.photobuck...-15-54-62-n.mp4

About GUI space: this one looks like it's possible to have filters for display only some buildable units. Also it dispalys 4 slots of space bases.

[evilbobthebob]

Filters are not possible due to PR's tech tree coding method. Another coding method isn't possible if the individual unit upgrade paths are to be preserved.

[Madurai]

Could the one-seater and two-seater Y-Wing families be split in the tech tree? Having the turreted version developed from the single-seater seems chronologically backward.

[Ghostrider]

Could the one-seater and two-seater Y-Wing families be split in the tech tree? Having the turreted version developed from the single-seater seems chronologically backward.

The point is that it DID develop that way. The version with rear gunner is the S3 variant, and saw a lot of use in GCW. I belive in the S4, the gunnery reverts to the pilot. Tricky, but that seemed the best way around the problem.

[Madurai]

The point is that it DID develop that way. The version with rear gunner is the S3 variant, and saw a lot of use in GCW. I belive in the S4, the gunnery reverts to the pilot. Tricky, but that seemed the best way around the problem.

I was under the impression that the turreted pure bomber version was the original incarnation, and the fighter-bomber was developed from it post-Clone Wars. Is it implied differently in the EU novels?

[DaveAshton]

The point is that it DID develop that way. The version with rear gunner is the S3 variant, and saw a lot of use in GCW. I belive in the S4, the gunnery reverts to the pilot. Tricky, but that seemed the best way around the problem.

I was under the impression that the turreted pure bomber version was the original incarnation, and the fighter-bomber was developed from it post-Clone Wars. Is it implied differently in the EU novels?

The -S3 didn't lead to the -A4, nor did the -A4 develop into the -S3. They both evolved at almost the same time from the -B.

So you have:

Originally: -B, 2-seater dedicated bomber with turret.
Then: -S3, 2-seater fighter-bomber, turreted ion cannon. And, -A4, single-seater fighter-bomber, fixed ion cannon.
Finally: -A4(LP) Longprobe, single-seater fighter-bomber with upgraded sensors etc.

[Ghostrider]

The point is that it DID develop that way. The version with rear gunner is the S3 variant, and saw a lot of use in GCW. I belive in the S4, the gunnery reverts to the pilot. Tricky, but that seemed the best way around the problem.

I was under the impression that the turreted pure bomber version was the original incarnation, and the fighter-bomber was developed from it post-Clone Wars. Is it implied differently in the EU novels?

The -S3 didn't lead to the -A4, nor did the -A4 develop into the -S3. They both evolved at almost the same time from the -B.

So you have:

Originally: -B, 2-seater dedicated bomber with turret.
Then: -S3, 2-seater fighter-bomber, turreted ion cannon. And, -A4, single-seater fighter-bomber, fixed ion cannon.
Finally: -A4(LP) Longprobe, single-seater fighter-bomber with upgraded sensors etc.

Sorry - I stand corrected then.

While we'd love to have every incarnation of every unit, as you can see from the latest news post, we need to balance this with game performance, and in this case we have chosen to keep these units as part of a single upgrade line for the BTL Y-Wing.

Hope this makes sense!

[Phoenix Rising]

Could the one-seater and two-seater Y-Wing families be split in the tech tree? Having the turreted version developed from the single-seater seems chronologically backward.

It's suggested that the A4 developed from the S3, but I'd have to delve into the chronology to say for certain. You are correct that we have it backwards for little other than gameplay reasons... Y-wing and also Z-95 upgrades are quirky in that regard.

I find it odd that the B-wing/E adds a gunner while the BTL-A4 removes the gunner. Seems like the gunner is a positive tactical step, but maybe it's outweighed by negative logistics. It's also possible the Alliance was trying to press the Y-wing into a fighter role with the A4.

Should they be different units? Probably not. For me, that usually comes down to a matter of hullform. I would, for example, argue that the BTL-B is not a variant of the contemporary Y-wing, but is instead a separate unit.

[Hanti]

Just one small question:
Will it be possible in future version (1.2/1.3) to REMOVE unwanted built star bases to make room for other space installations?
The same way like removing land structures.

[evilbobthebob]

It's not possible to have it work the same way as land structures because space structures do not have a "sell" mechanic available in game. However, I believe that there are scripting solutions available.

[Phoenix Rising]

He's right on the scripting, but it would only apply to the first two stations built - the ones that actually show up on the interface. Of course, if you sold those, the others ought to bubble up, although it's impossible to say, since stations have never been killed from galactic before (at least in PR).

The other option, with terrible implications, is to allow them to be sold tactically. That is possible with a behavior addition.

Overall, starting stations are easier to get rid of in v1.2 than v1.1 since the AI is attacking.

Edited by Phoenix Rising, 08 February 2012 - 02:40 PM.

[Brashin]

Sounds like we should have a good challenge then for 1.2, cant wait

[smashedsaturn]

Could the one-seater and two-seater Y-Wing families be split in the tech tree? Having the turreted version developed from the single-seater seems chronologically backward.

It's suggested that the A4 developed from the S3, but I'd have to delve into the chronology to say for certain. You are correct that we have it backwards for little other than gameplay reasons... Y-wing and also Z-95 upgrades are quirky in that regard.

I find it odd that the B-wing/E adds a gunner while the BTL-A4 removes the gunner. Seems like the gunner is a positive tactical step, but maybe it's outweighed by negative logistics. It's also possible the Alliance was trying to press the Y-wing into a fighter role with the A4.

Should they be different units? Probably not. For me, that usually comes down to a matter of hullform. I would, for example, argue that the BTL-B is not a variant of the contemporary Y-wing, but is instead a separate unit.

perhaps they were pressed for pilots and modified they Y-wing to not require two?

[johnchm.10]

the S3 may be a more dedicated or improved bomber than a fighter-bomber. i got this idea because of the increased shields and the ion turret on the S3. when making a bombing run on an armed and armored target, a fighter or bomber cant maneuver that much before its off target. at the same time, its pretty much constantly under fire from defensive guns and any enemy fighters that may be in the area. eventually, the fighters will get hit by gun-fire. the turret is if nothing else, useful for slowing down enemy fighters or diverting them so they would have to change their tactics and wast time, and the shields help absorb extra damage, allowing the bombers to get in closer and potentially get more torpedoes or lasers/ions off, along with more attack runs. it might also be that the turret gunner might handle other duties, like a bombardier or systems manager. as for the B-wing/E, at that point, i think that as the NRDF's requirements expanded due to the expansion of the new republic, thus necessitating a need for more ships (the New Class program), and an interim modernization of the ships then in service to increase their capability and versatility (the constant upgrades to the x-wing and other fighters). basically they want to increase the firepower of smaller units so they can cover more ground with the available ships until new ships can enter service.

Edited by johnchm.10, 09 February 2012 - 02:50 AM.

[Hanti]

I hope there will still be upgrade system in PR 1.2.
But it should cost more or last longer to upgrade something (fighters) as for now with 1.1 fighter upgrades are like blitz. One can't build many new fighters before new upgraded version is available.

[evilbobthebob]

Don't worry, the comprehensive upgrade system from previous versions remains. We understand your concern about only building small numbers of each ship mark until the final version is researched; we have been looking into possible ways to fix that in later versions.

[Hanti]

Glad to read it.
What about land warfare. Are you gonna treat garrisons like star bases garrisons, I mean: one time troops and not a constant flow of reinforcements? I will be happy to see if land defender has finite amount of troops, much like land attacker.

Edited by Hanti, 21 February 2012 - 01:01 PM.