306 replies to this topic

[Kitkun]

Not a chance. You have no idea on the number of variants out there.
Besides complement upgrades are non-linear. You can upgrade the carrier, and have the complement remain unchanged or jump 2 fighter upgrades in one go. It depends on the carrier and the type of fighter/bomber/transport being carried.

Oh, I do. Which reminds me... one quick off-topic post, is the hardpoint file split for space and land now? I shudder to think of how massive it's grown to be with the ground revamp.

[Phoenix Rising]

It is, but the land file is only about one-twelfth the size of space.

[Hanti]

Idea 1:
Back to days when I played Rebellion game (Supremacy) it was obvious that core worlds are more important to control than rim worlds. But in EAW it's so simple to just conquer some remote small planet on the edge of a galaxy and transfer it into Kuat-like shipyard world. I know those planets can not produce larger ships, but who needs it when one can have 100 fighter squadrons ?
So maybe it will be wise to reverse Brentaal IV effect and make some planets worse in ship/troop production, like more costly production. Let's make it a standard that all worlds except some chosen ones have penalties to production and only some have bonuses. Then it will be SO IMPORTANT to control those Kuat, Yaga Minor, Fondor or Rothana planets.
Or one can suffer and produce ships with +50% cost penalty.

Idea 2:
CPU can not understand that building 5 shipyards 1-class is better than 2 shipyards 2-class, 2 shipyards 3-class and 1 shipyard 5-class on the same planet. Human always will have advantage after few weeks in game, when he establish a few shipyard worlds. I always build main shipyards on Brentaal and with its bonus to cost and bonus to time with multiply shipyards, CPU is doomed.
So maybe it will be sensible to limit planets to have only ONE TYPE of shipyard per planet? CPU will be in same position as human in that case. Or maybe AI in version 1.2 is more elaborated and actually CAN build multiply same level shipyards on planets?

Edited by Hanti, 24 February 2012 - 07:56 PM.

[Hanti]

What needs to happen is a shift of emphasis. Currently freighters and mining facilities are both equally viable, so map control isn't particularly important. I think that the mining facilities need to be the most important income stream, and freighters scaled back, so that map control becomes more important. I think TB's patch had a changelog which explains some of the stuff, and in my opinion it was a big improvement on standard skirmish in PR.

Idea 3:
Is it possible to set freighters same way as gambling income (arena, etc)? One week it could bring 100% income, next week 30% and the other week just -50% income (negative income). Will be very helpful with freighters spamming tactic.
In fact freighters captains should not know exact income they earn each trip

[Phoenix Rising]

Idea 1:
Back to days when I played Rebellion game (Supremacy) it was obvious that core worlds are more important to control than rim worlds.

Short of a scripting solution, you can't capture buildings in EaW. I'm fine with that, as we are not simulating civilian infrastructure with bases - that's handled by planetary advantages. If you took that feature out of Rebellion, it'd be just as easy to build up the "Outer Rim". It already is incredibly important to control shipwright worlds in PR, as they offer galactic production bonuses. I don't like the idea of introducing a penalty, mostly because it'd be arbitrary.

Idea 2:
CPU can not understand that building 5 shipyards 1-class is better than 2 shipyards 2-class, 2 shipyards 3-class and 1 shipyard 5-class on the same planet.

Yes it can. It does. The AI has full comprehension of advantages. Moving on.

Idea 3:
Is it possible to set freighters same way as gambling income (arena, etc)?

It should be possible. They'd still have to make an average profit though, or they'd be kind of pointless.

[MawDrallin]

Here's my two credits: I believe the V-wing Airspeeder (for the New Republic) and the AT-PT (for the Empire/Remnant) would be a good fit in the game.

[evilbobthebob]

Both of those vehicles are in our list of things we want for land combat

[johnchm.10]

would the V-wing be any good against an AT-AT?
its not like its got the harpoon launcher, and i cant imagine those blaster cannons will be that powerful

[Phoenix Rising]

"Blaster" doesn't always mean "blaster". Same for caliber descriptors... too many were written by authors with little technical understanding.

[predator30]

I have been watching and playing this mod since before. the starfighter mini-mod first came out. But I don't usually post on forums it is great and is a perfect example of what the developers could have done the game had they been bothered.

However, since 1.1, there has been one major problem which has not gone away and that is the lag. Granted, this has been greatly improved in 1.2. In an ideal world FOC would support multithreading, which would mean there would be no lag whatsoever.

Correct me if I'm wrong but because of the way EAW and FOC works. It looks at the code for every single unit you have in galactic mode and does this on a 24\7 basis. Meaning that the more units you have the more code your computers processor has to process.

I have an I5 2500 K 3 .3 gig and the game still struggles to run some of the larger maps. Given the power of my processor this is quite staggering. We have the original game developers to thank for this problem as this is caused by the way the game is designed.
Idea
Cut the amount of pirate space units that are in galactic mode by 50% and give pirate space stations a reasonable set garrison. This would significantly reduce the amount of code that your computer processor would need to process while the game is in galactic mode. This would probably kill the lag for most people. The game would only look at the garrison code when a space battle is triggered.

Keep up the good work

[Phoenix Rising]

Welcome to the forums, finally .

That's the general cause of the lag; however, I'm not yet prepared to say it's inevitable. We're planning a change for v1.3 that will hopefully allow the AI to consider fewer possibilities from strategic. If the lag is AI-related, we're really just scratching the surface of that. There's more general optimization we can do yet as well.

[MawDrallin]

Also, I think Cato Neimoidia and Csilla would be fun worlds to battle over in the mod.

[Zeta1127]

I would personally love to see Tython.

[Phoenix Rising]

Not the biggest flashpoints of the GCW, but noted. Some worlds are attractive just for the sake of what their potential bonuses would be. Rhinnal is one of my favorites.

Edited by Phoenix Rising, 06 April 2012 - 04:17 AM.

[Subjugator]

1. Have you played Republic Commando? The Acclamator-class I "Prosecutor" had 4 torpedo tubes and torpedos that dwarf individuals? In-game, those huge launchers, (on Acclamator, Imperial...) launch a mere 64 damage torpedo, while a tiny fighter launches a 32. In my opinion, the capital scale torpedo tubes are badly underpowered. How can a small craft (transports, shuttles, boimbers) overpower capital proton torpedos by such a great margin? The bow of an Imperial-class has 6 enormous tubes also, yet a single wing of fighters (X-wing basic) easily outmatches it's output. You might want to scale weapon damage according to size. Because right now, TIE bombers, Y-wing and K-wing can ravage too well.

2. I've already edited pretty much of XML's, as I didn't like the space battles of machine-guning lights. The Tec_IV HOTL is a TL minigun, and when there are three of them, you might imagine the effects. The same goes for MonCal's, Bulwark, Praetor.... Somehow the fact that some small corvettes or even shuttles have the same class weaponry as 1000+ meters flagships really kills it for me. I would have implemented a far less linear increase in damage. And try to create a real sense of full broadside. In addition, I don't like how you implemented so many secondary TL batteries on IMPs and TECs, as I personally don't see where do they fit. I would understand if those were point- and close-defence lasers, but I would relegate the anti-shipping weaponry to those several turrets on sides (with heavier weaponry, now they are the same class as the ubitquitous side TL), amidships, and the main-battery. Imagine episode IV opening scene with those LTL.
This is just my personal opinion.

3. On the land section, I don't quite understand how can blaster and laser weaponry, being capable of hitting 1-2 m slender personnel even at long ranges, be inaccurate even against 22.5 m AT-ATs? Or slow mowing airspeeder (LAAT-i) right above their head?

4. I've noticed that whenever an upgrade increases max shield points, it does nothing to recharge rates? Somehow, this kills it for me, as the upgrade indicates improved reactor and shield generators, which should imply improved recharge rates. Right now, TIE Defender x9 (my favourite) 400 SBD recharge at a meagre rate of 5 (I've re-scaled that to 20 personally), the same as some lowest tier shields. It could be grateful to designate what amount does the shield recharge every interval (1/20 seems to be the original value), and keep on scaling accordingly through upgrades

5. I have to persevere on this one to the end. The Imp I seems so badly underpowered. It is only slightly tougher than a Venator I, and the same as Venator II. It is 500 m (almost 50%), indisputably bulkier, with an obviously much bigger reactor, much reduced starfighter complement. Yet it has the same main battery (even crappier for me actually), and the same class as an antique Dreadnought-class (10 vs 12). The Venator is an older design (destroyer-carrier), while the Imperator I was designed with direct combat in mind. Can you explain me where do the never design, larger size, better reactor, and an obviously more defence-efficient shape (outer surface/volume) manifest? I know they are later designs, but those CC-9600 and Strike-class are the perfect example why I don't like the current balancing. They are just outright overpowered. Where is that reactor that powers those 30+ HTL in that thin miniature hull (when compared to capitals)? And the 5 HOTL are a very optimistic armament for those dimensions. The larger the size of the vessel and the outer surface/volume ratio, the higher the energy and weapon efficiency. Not the opposite. The smaller craft's weapon/size ratio, even if applied with the same factor, would create floating fortresses. (Imagine scalling the DP20 and Crusader or Bayonet to size). Now i remebered the useless "not-so" Invincible-class. Remove it. Completely. It just creates pathfinding issues for some true warships.

6. My space battle remarks go towards increasing the cost and value of capitals and destroyers significantly. Right now, the power/size/cost is misrepresented singificantly towards shuttles and corvettes. The corvettes (Crusader, Bayonet) boast the same weapons class as the dreadnoughts and battleships, which is absurd. The DP20 cost 1200, while a probably 100 times bigger ship costs 15970 (IMP). Right now I am trying to make the loss of a capital ship a painful one, while at the same time make them worth of defending and sacrificing lesser craft. By creating a distinction between anti-shipping and self-defence weapons, you would get more "SW Universe logic" battles. Slow firing high damage TL feasible only versus frigates and larger and close defence lasers and "flak guns". The research times should be prolonged so you need to relegate planets to research only and defend them while in the process of development. And the salvage bonus of some planets, when stacked, means that war is the best industry (US advisors in your team? ), should be decreased.

7. Some Hero hitpoints in Land combat make them pretty much invincible, to the point where you can make them soak up fire, and leave more fragile units to do the damage.

I would love to hear your thoughts on every one of these subjects.

PS: Don't get me wrong, my ideas consist of merely changing single lines of code, to affect flavor of battles. Everything else is top-class
PPS: Will there be any destruction animations in the future? It brings epicness into battles, too.

Edited by Subjugator, 06 April 2012 - 11:31 AM.

[evilbobthebob]

Thanks for your detailed feedback! Space combat mechanics are still something of a work-in-progress, and I'll let PR address most of your points. What I can say is that we're thinking along similar lines to you with regards to potential changes. Space destruction animations are rather time consuming to make, and it seemed odd to only have a few ships with them, so they were cut.

[johnchm.10]

good points to be sure, as, and this is in no way an insult, there is always improvements that can be made, tweaks to be done.
regarding the power generation issue you bring up, one point i must advance is that the Imperial-class was designed near the end of the Clone Wars. while no specific dates were given for the design and production of the Strike Cruiser, i imagine it was around the battle of Yavin or later "A departure from the Navy's trend towards increasingly large warships, the Strike-class cruiser was an admission to diminished ability to defend space superiority against the Rebel Alliance and other forces as the conflict wore on." taken from the wookiepedia page. this implies that the rebels had won a string of victories.point being that the ship is newer and a bit more advanced technologically. and in theory, seeing as how the ship is designed to be modular, you could have a module for the 2 squadrons of fighters (using 1.1 stats, as i havent played as empire yet, nor seen the empire deploy the ships against me), and a second module featuring another or expanded engineering section.
as for the CC-9600, to be honest, i would have to go with the same philosophy, although, to be fair, there is not a lot we know about the class. its entirely possible its larger than how its represented in the mod, in 1.1 youve got the size of the -9600 at 270 meters. the wookiepedia definition of a frigate excluding the star-frigate classification generally puts a frigate between 250 and 400 meters long. its possible that the 9600 could be scaled up in terms of size, yet still within the realm of canon, and since its got more of a boxy hull, that would imply that one could cram a lot more stuff in the hull.

[Subjugator]

I've pointed out those 2 as the most overpowered smaller craft.
I've just pointed out the Imperial I as the most immediate one. The same, if not even more, goes for Mon Cal designs. Just compare MonCal 80 line armament/size versus the Strike and CC-9600. I personally believe, that in order to make a good and interesting tactical and strategic SW universe game, you should abandon most of "canon" and wookieepedia to be honest. Not only beacuse I personally despise most of those comics and the number of generic characters that appear there (Rule of Two somehow became Rule of Two Thousand among other). The content can mostly be summarized into Rambo-style Rebels defeating legions of heavy Imperial forces led by ever more stupid and incompetent leaders (crash into each other, hyperspace into eavh other) oh and of course some crappy uberretarded complex plot, and lastly the R2D2, that singlehandendly wipes out everything. Because a superfleet or a supercomputer are too mainstream, you need a simple astrodroid to defeat your oponents.
If we have a 1250 m bulky ship (MC 80) versus a 270 m rather thin CC-9600, how can this one pack 30 HTL, while the bigger, better shaped MC 80 48 TL? It just doesn't feel right to have so overpowered smaller craft. You might ask the question, well why aren't the 1250 m ships just 5 times more powerful? In fact, they should be even more powerful than how many times they are long (the mass and space obviously are not linear with length of the hull). Why don't the Rebels have a 1350 m with 150 + HTL? (it should have even more).
How many Strikes fit into an Imperator? Why not simply count then and add the appropriate increase in weapons? The technology is obviously present.
I am a great fan of all SW mods, from Warlords (0.xx), across Awakening of the Rebellion, SOGE's, and of course, PR. Each had pros and cons, but the PR is the most complete one, definitely. However, it it might borrow some concepts and ideas from others.

[Phoenix Rising]

Torpedo damage is reflective of RPG damage rolls at the moment. That may not be the most authentic way to do it.

The ISD armament is an amalgamation of D6 stats and the actual movie model. Without disregarding one source or the other, that's the best compromise. The main battery is rarely, if ever, codified in RPG figures... books usually mention 120 cannons.

When you're dealing with ranges on the ground, think one-fifth scale. Everything has been compacted so we can get the most out of the maps, which are usually only about 1 km², and also have the action fit on-screen.

Airspeeder flight ceiling is even worse - that's capped at 25 m. So, even if a LAAT appears overhead, the inaccuracy values assume that it's actually higher.

The fact that blasters are accurate against personnel and lasers are accurate against materiel is a matter of targeting computer configuration. Assume that can be adjusted in-universe, even if it only works one way in-game.

Shield recharge is a function of the reactor, and we don't really account for reactor output. Something probably has to give there though.

First of all, the Invincible isn't going anywhere simply because it's 2000 m. That's an awful reason.

I think you're wrong to say the Imperial-class is designed for combat... it's really a star destroyer, carrier, and assault ship rolled into one. The main battery is likely on par with the Venator's, since that has very few turbolasers drawing power. Even so, I get your point on damage output. Again, it's roleplaying figures and they could stand an overhaul.

Heroes are meant to counter other heroes. I don't think Vader's current stats, for example, are out-of-line with other media. Remember, they historically delayed the Alliance for almost two decades because there were no Jedi to take on the Dark Lords.

Actually, the old death clones were removed in a debugging process. I don't expect them to return unless someone steps up to create animations for everything.

I put the Strike-class at 2.5 ABY internally. It's one of the most advanced designs the Empire gets. CC-9600 armament is a direct conversion from Rebellion. I'm open to rescaling, if that can ever be answered definitively.

MC80s are liner conversions, so you can't make comparisons against dedicated warships. I don't disagree with you on much of the canon though... "reinvent it if it doesn't work" is basically the philosophy I used with land stats. And I do appreciate the technical critique. We need more of that.

Edited by Phoenix Rising, 06 April 2012 - 07:06 PM.

[Subjugator]

Thanks for the reply
I don't really get it with the Imp I. Where exactly do we get the carrier/assault ship role? I have the impression that it has reduced starfighter complement, and it goes along Tarkin doctrine of big, firepower focused battleships. Hence, they discontinued the Venator. My suggestion is to discard all that crappy wookieepedia "battery" "cannon" "generic turbolaser/turboion" stats, as they are useless in real games. I really should point out that you can't really expect a picket, or corvette to have the same class weaponry as battleships and dreadnoughts? Or transports and corvettes matching MC's main batteries?
When I go into cinematic mode, those capitals really dwarf those frigates, cruisers, destroyers etc. Yes, the Imp houses some bases (obviously not too big actually, where would you unload them? Add some AT-AT (22.5 m), but we are talking about a 1600 m long, fat , wide sector command ships!). And some 270 m tiny thin frigate has heavier firepower?!
I will repeat myself and ask, ok they improved technology in those 20-some years. Why not make then something the size of Imps or Tecs with the same technology as Strike? You do realise it would need to have 300+ HTL? Nearly three Strikes make it in the length, while many more if we count by mass or volume. Or the Rebels with the 1200 m Republic-class, again 40 HTL versus 270 m CC-9600 30 HTL (chronologically near).
My point is even if you simply, and that would be inaccurate too, scale the armament to length proportionally, you still underpowered your bigger classes, just by arming them with the same class armament.

PS: My regard with the Invincible-class was that it is a big, useless, practically unarmed ship. A single bomber squadron is more useful for the AI / pirates.