306 replies to this topic

[evilbobthebob]

The Invincible is almost entirely designed to tank incoming fire. At that job, it excels. It also shreds any smaller craft that get close. It's more of a statement of power for its owners than a viable combat ship.

[MinofDefense]

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.

Numerous sources, going back to the original Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels have established that Imperial-I Star Destroyers were essentially multi-purpose system domination ships. For space-superiority they carry a wing of starfighters and a few dozen assault shuttles and gunboats. For planetary invasions they carry a division (slightly under 10,000) of infantry as well as dozens of armored land assault vehicles in their hull. That's where much of the internal space of the ship goes to, carrying that assault force.

[smashedsaturn]

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.

The Tector and Praetor are the battleships/flagships, the Imperial is the mainline multi-role capital ship, the victory is the mainline heavy cruiser, the Venator is the battle-carrier, the acclamator is the basic assault/support cruiser, the dreadnought is a back-water system occupation and defense ship with anti starfighter weapons, but can be pressed into cruiser service early on. The immobilizer is an interdictor and the dominator a larger combat ready interdictor. The Strike is a updated multi-role cruiser to supplement the victories and fleet action or be the heavy hitter of smaller fleets. The nebulon-b and carracks are light destroyers used for anti-starfighter duty and fleet support, while the MTC is the fleet tender and utility ship. the bulk carrier is the non battle carrier and the lancer is the specialist anti-starfiggter support. the corvettes are used in smaller fleets or to provide fast attack mobility in larger fleets that is heavier than the fighters and transports.

The real tarkin doctrine ships are the Praetor (barely), the Executor, the soviergn, and eventually the eclipse.

think i got them all hope that helps you with questions of role, these are my own opinions but they tend to work very well for me. I do agree that the larger capitals need a smaller number of much heavier guns but i think this needs to be addressed with a new weapon class:"Capital-Turbolaser" with twice the damage and 3/4^ths the fire rate of current heavies but 150% of the range.

[wuffles]

What role do corvettes serve in this mod. From what I have seen they even more so than frigates dont serve any real purpose. Fighter/Bomber/Transport are the small but extreme damage vessels which rely on size to provide some protection from the big ships. At the other end you have the cruisers which are generally good if not quite as cost effective as the size 1/2 vessels but less likely to lose them especially if upgraded.
The size ,3,5 vessels just dont seem to be that useful. The size 3 get used a bit at the start before you can make the useful size 4 vessels but once they start to appear there seems little reason to build a size 3. The size 5 are just too big slow and expensive to really bother with. I would rather have 20 upgraded nova wings than a praetor and building 20 novas takes much less time.

Just completed my game on hard in core worlds. Most of the heavy work was done just by using skipray blastboats as in larger numbers there is not really anything the ai has that can handle them. The fact they are unlocked from the start and have an excellent upgrade path means they are just too convenient to ignore. Maybe they need the squad size cutting down to 3 or maybe even 2 to make them a bit more balanced. Either that or they need be either concussion or proton but not both as it means they can all too easily take any size target with both.

[Subjugator]

Hm, alright them, it seems you didn't get my post. Compare those several 22 meter walkers and shuttles +9000 troops with the size of the Star Destroyer. (modern US carriers, a fraction of SW capitals, have 5.700 crew). Really insignificant.
I've already given my opinion on those various official nonsense, because canon, as in real life canon, just doesn't do it.
They have smaller hangar facilities than Venator (72 vs 420), yet house more troops. Pretty silly for me.
If you are implying that an Imperial I has the same main battery, almost the same shields and hull, much reduced starfighter complement, while being 50% longer, more massive, with a bigger reactor, just to carry additional 7.700 troops and AT-AT instead of AT-TE (20 vs 20) when compared to Venator. And now where exactly does the Tector profit from its role as a battleship when compared to Imps?The Tector I, dispensing with everything except space battle, still the same battery as Venator. Why on Earth would you give away starfighter support? To receive plated bottom? To get some poorly positioned secondary light guns?
Please make my day.

[Subjugator]

All of my posts were made as I have playtested that the transports and bombers are the absolute bane of everything. You don't even have to spend that much. Transports have turreted anti-fighter weaponry or missiles, both of higher class than those of fighters , so they are even self-escorting against fighter screens. You make several upgraded squads of both and you take down practically everything in single passes. Both the Empire and the Rebellion can rely only on fighters or only on transports to do the fighting, and they do it most effectively that way.

[johnchm.10]

the issues with the MC-80 are as follows. 1: the guns on it may not be of the biggest caliber or greatest number due to simple logistics. they may be the most powerful ships in the alliance's aresnal, but the alliance may not have been able to acquire the resources to outfit them with the heavier guns like those seen on the Imperial class, although i personally would try to modify the guns to be either have a higher recharge rate/rate of fire, or greater . 2. its possible that advances in fire control have rendered the need for some of the smaller guns moot, as they are decidely better at hitting smaller ships like transports compared to their imperial counterparts. this also may mean a bonus for targeting larger vessels, such as increased optimal range, even if its only a hundred or so meters, that gives it the chance to get a few extra volleys off at an enemy vessel, its shields are likely heavier than those of its imperial counterparts due to its past as a luxury liner. the shields would need to be heavier due to the need to protect its important, and presumably wealthy passengers, from navigational hazards like asteroid fields, or high-radiation zones, as well as raiders. ill address the rest of this and repost this on a thread i started in the general discussion part
http://forums.revora...stenciesissues/

[johnchm.10]

better yet, lets just move the rest of the ships issues over to the thread i linked. thats kinda what its there for

[smashedsaturn]

Hm, alright them, it seems you didn't get my post. Compare those several 22 meter walkers and shuttles +9000 troops with the size of the Star Destroyer. (modern US carriers, a fraction of SW capitals, have 5.700 crew). Really insignificant.
I've already given my opinion on those various official nonsense, because canon, as in real life canon, just doesn't do it.
They have smaller hangar facilities than Venator (72 vs 420), yet house more troops. Pretty silly for me.
If you are implying that an Imperial I has the same main battery, almost the same shields and hull, much reduced starfighter complement, while being 50% longer, more massive, with a bigger reactor, just to carry additional 7.700 troops and AT-AT instead of AT-TE (20 vs 20) when compared to Venator. And now where exactly does the Tector profit from its role as a battleship when compared to Imps?The Tector I, dispensing with everything except space battle, still the same battery as Venator. Why on Earth would you give away starfighter support? To receive plated bottom? To get some poorly positioned secondary light guns?
Please make my day.

when you first research a ship wouldn't they put on an armament package that they had already proven and battle tested? Then as time progresses the ships diverge from the basic original load out into their specialized roles. The Tector is for use in fleet action with lots of support, it has heavier armor and a less exposed reator as well as large heavy battery of high damage weapons, perfect for dealing with those pirates that shred fighters with their slugthrowers and disruptors.

[Phoenix Rising]

The point of corvettes and frigates is simply to die in place of larger ships. That may not be apparent now, but it will be in the future.

Again, the problem isn't specifically Skiprays, but the mechanic itself.

The Venator carries something like 9400 men; the Imperial something like 47000. You're also ignoring the volume of the transport complement on the ISD.

Look, I can't really defend the space rules right now because they're slated for changes. Land, for the most part, isn't, so I'd rather respond to critiques on that.

[anakinskysolo]

I believe that in order to really evaluate how space battles are and the usefulness of this or that ship, you must fight against other humans. The AI is just too stupid in tactical battles (especially space) to actually give you a real sense of how ships are to be deployed and used, as well as how powerful they really are.

[Phoenix Rising]

I don't believe I've exhausted all the possibilities for getting tech and heroes into multiplayer GC yet. Curious what the interest level would be if I could get it to work.

[predator30]

I think that for the most part the space part of the mod is good. As with everything, there are always a few things which need looking at. As PR keeps hinting at. They haven't finished with space yet.

When ship upgrades improve shielding do they also improve shield recovery rates?

The rebels need a ship that is more of an adequate counter to the empires SSD's. A ship that would not perhaps be an exact match, but one that with support would be capable of taking down the empires SSD's

The rebels need a large fighter carrier; the Empire has this in the form of the ventor

I know this isn't the right place but has anybody else noticed that the Empire AI seems to love Ventors? They're the most common ship I fight.

The AI is just too stupid in tactical battles (especially space) to actually give you a real sense of how ships are to be deployed and used, as well as how powerful they really are.

point proved

sorry if there are any English mistakes but I use dictation software because I have cerebral palsy and therefore can't type quickly. There are always one or two mistakes that you may miss.

Edited by predator30, 07 April 2012 - 11:58 AM.

[evilbobthebob]

The point of the Rebel's fighters in my view is that they don't require a carrier due to their hyperdrives. Of course in practice this tends to mean that the Rebellion can't field as many fighters in battle due to population costs. I'm not entirely sure how to address this.

The reason the AI likes Venators so much is their price/performance ratio, and that they are the first destroyer available without research. If you play campaigns where the Imperial-class has been unlocked from the start, you'll find the AI is more likely to field them in battle.

[Subjugator]

I didn't mean to criticise your work, PR team. The whole point was to adress inconstistencies that occur if strictly following "canon" and "official" data, because this is mainly established on some odd stuff, or other games where you get to be an uber character, wiping out entire task forces with a single fighter, defeating entire sectors single-handendly etc. Just read several "canon articles" on Wookieepedia, and you'll get my point:
A Dreadnaught-class is an equal to Victory II;
you need 12 Venators to take on a Lucrehulk, while on the Venator article it says a few can easily take down Lucrehulk's shields;
you need around 1000 Recusants to take on a Mandator II (still weaker than an Executor-class)
you need around 4-6 Recusants to take on a Venator, BUT if you count the Recusants listed armament, its: "an oversized heavy turbolaser", 4 heavy turbolaser, 6 heavy turbolaser turrets five turbolaser cannons, thirty dual laser cannons, twelve dual light laser cannons, and sixty point-defense laser cannons., which is what the Mk1 in-game has. Oh and it says a Venator has 52 (!) dual lasers or turbo-lasers (!) as point-defence. Note how they generalize everything into the same class: the Recusants single and Munificient's double oversized are named the same as some rather smaller other guns; while the "turbolaser" is used as a generic term covering everything from close-defence to heavy battleship armament. This is just a glimpse of how stupid these articles are, and how hampering for actual balancing they are.

My question on blaster weaponry was why is an infrantryman more capable of hitting a distant infrantryman than a distant vehicle, which is obviously much bigger? This doesn't seem right. You might want to set a single circular area value against all targets, except against airspeeders, as you have already said they are limited in operating height. For example, AT-AT's secondary batteries have a higher chance to hit a single person than a T4 tank or a structure at the same distance. Or a scoutrooper missing buildings, while hitting infrantry more often? Just imagine, you are aiming a blaster, I doubt you could hit a person more often than a vehicle or a building.

[predator30]

The reason the AI likes Venators so much is their price/performance ratio, and that they are the first destroyer available without research. If you play campaigns where the Imperial-class has been unlocked from the start, you'll find the AI is more likely to field them in battle.

my point is that they use them as the be all and end all. even against fleets full of fighters and bombers and they are not good at engaging these and yet they are still the most common ship in their fleets.

[evilbobthebob]

@ Subjugator We don't use wookieepedia much for ship statistics, because it is inconsistent as you have shown.

@ predator Well, the Venator is a battlecarrier and so it has a large fighter complement that can deal with fighters and bombers. I understand what you're saying though, and it's a difficult problem that could only be addressed by "teaching" the AI a unit's strengths and weaknesses, not an easy task.

[Phoenix Rising]

The Venator takes over 15 minutes to launch its entire complement. There's no wait on fighters with hyperdrive. You hit the Venator before it can unload - that's the balance.

That's not the issue, Subjugator. Some of your points are valid, but I can't discuss how v1.3 might differ before we actually do it and post news. How you want something to work and what the engine allows are usually two different things.

Assume infantry can't stand still when facing off against vehicles. Buildings include everything from a Barracks to a XX-10 tower, so, yeah, it's weird against unarmed ones. That could be tweaked at some point.

[Casen]

The Invincible is almost entirely designed to tank incoming fire. At that job, it excels. It also shreds any smaller craft that get close. It's more of a statement of power for its owners than a viable combat ship.

It is relatively cheap for a ship it's size but for it's size and performance it's firepower and armor is about that of a medium cruiser at best. The only real strength it has is when upgraded it launches nearly endless volleys of proton torpedos and concussion missiles.

Comparably an MC-40 is a much, much more effective vehicle; which is saying something considering it's relative size.

Edited by Kacen, 09 April 2012 - 08:28 PM.

[smashedsaturn]

I don't believe I've exhausted all the possibilities for getting tech and heroes into multiplayer GC yet. Curious what the interest level would be if I could get it to work.

Id be extremely interested in this