46 replies to this topic

[smashedsaturn]

I always thought of it as an extension of the spies/spying or defectors/POWs giving away plans. the clock does run pretty fast in game.

[Phoenix Rising]

60 seconds real-time = 1 GSC week in-game = 5 days in-game. Each flashing bar corresponds to half a day.

[smashedsaturn]

60 seconds real-time = 1 GSC week in-game = 5 days in-game. Each flashing bar corresponds to half a day.

Makes perfect sense that way, gives you a few game hours to react to information you got from your intelligence branch, love the .6 hyperdrive on acclamators for this

[R-TEAM]

Hi,

play now the Far-Far.... Galaxy campaign at hard (late game it was boring on easy to crush the AI core campaign after i figured out the game more ...) and have a couple of additional suggestions and questions ...

First i musst say i have no big deeper knowing of the starwars universe .... so if any of my suggestions crap because it is in canon "normal" the ignorre it

I think the AI act on Hard to "easy" ... if i get in an system , the AI only fly at here patrol routes, and if "I" make no misttake, the AI dont see my ships and i have enough time to relase all docked fighter/bombers/watever ... and can then strike with many more power as on an multiplayer game ... as in multiplayer games the other player know an enamy fleet IS here and search here ....

On independent systems it is from time to time an to strong fleet here ...
It is not the overall strength is to high ... but to overpowered ships for an independent system .... (large stardestroyers on an time i have only one or two ...) ... this should be better balanced IMHO with more smaller "special" ships ...

Have i miss something or it is ATM not possible to play as the "3" side (the Yellow - dont remember here name ) - as i can only chose empire or alliance ... and will it be anytime possible to play this ... (and play this side in multiplayer campaign ?)
(and have not seen the AI for the yellow side doing anything except defending ...)

Regards
R-TEAM

[evilbobthebob]

We know that the battle AI is still pretty terrible, and it's something we really want to fix. However, writing AI is difficult! Plus we are making some changes to space combat for the next version so we don't want to give the AI any new behaviours before that is all finalised.

Independent fleets are designed to be as difficult as possible, within certain constraints, to improve the tactical difficulty (it compensates for that poor AI). We are making some changes in the next version that should reduce the sheer number of ships on independent worlds.

It is not currently possible to play the Corporate Sector Authority. They are missing a lot of game-critical units so they remain a different type of independent faction for now.

[R-TEAM]

Hi,

thanks for the answers als always evilbobthebob

This will explain the bad behavor of even an hard AI

I dont think the number of ships is the problem .... (i hope you dont missunderstand me here ...)
It is more the "Class" of the ships this Independent fleets have ...i cant imagine who an independent world can become an Imperial star destroyer in here fleet if i as Empire have only 2 at this time .... he cant going to Kuat and buy one ............. and capture one is not more easy ....
So to make the fleets plausible he should have more smaller/special-pirate+smuggler ships, who is not an logical problem who the ship is from .....

O.K. - the CSA is not playable ATM - think it is planed to make in any of the next relases this playable ...
The remain questions now :
Will this be then an game in singleplayer with 1 human player vs 2 AI players (and as now vs independent worlds ...) ...and ...
Will it be in multiplayer then possible to play an campaign multiplayer game with 3 human players, or is the number of 2 an engine limit ...?

Regards
R-TEAM

[Kitkun]

For independent worlds, they tend to have larger/more advanced forces since they have no AI and thus never upgrade. It becomes really trivial to take some important planets otherwise.

IIRC, CSA was intended to be playable, but lack of units and technical problems means they're just there for show and Skirmish mode.

[evilbobthebob]

Independent worlds having powerful ships (at least in the 18BBY sandbox campaigns like Core Worlds/GFFA) is to provide a challenge, as Kitkun says. We really try to keep the illegal ships (those armed with mass drivers, disruptors etc) confined to planets with known illegal activity. If you want to face off against such craft, attack a planet with the "Underworld" bonus and you will almost certainly see some exotic weaponry.

We still want CSA to become playable in single player. It just requires more units.

While it would be great to have 3-player multiplayer campaigns, firstly 2-player is (as you said) the engine limit; and secondly, it would require removing our technology system because it is not compatible with multiplayer campaigns. There was a multiplayer GC patch for the previous version of PR, but it ran into a lot of synchronisation issues.

[Phoenix Rising]

It's less the difficulty of it and more that we're still changing the rules, and you can't write AI until the rules are finalized. Or, at least, it would generate more work for you if you did.

That's a good point on the ISD availability; however, I don't believe there are too many of them around at all in our 18 BBY campaigns.

The unintentional side-effect of doing land combat is that it set the CSA back that much further from being playable. We don't really have any good options for their ground units at the moment. We probably won't be able to proceed on this front until we can find more help in the art department.

[R-TEAM]

Hi,

thanks for the answers ....

@Kitkun
yes - i understand the logic behind the reason to put large dangerous ships on an independent world .... but this make it not more "plausible"
So i would prefere an "subtiler" way of rising the difficult to capture this worlds ...
But this is anyway an hopeless action - as the empire or alliance - you have the resources of diff worlds to your control to build large and larger fleets so the independent worlds have no chance at all ..... the real fight is still between Empire vs alliance ...

@evilbobthebob
yea - this make sense - get the illegal ships to the planets with known illegal activity ....
it was more an suggestion to make independent worlds fleets without the use of not plausible heavy ships more dangerous - but this is as i understand not an soooo good option ....
So to suggest an compromisse, get the independent worlds without illegal activity maybe only few illegal ships (one or two) and many fighters/bombers and other (maybe refitted for battle) general available ships .... maybe older versions from clone wars SD .... this would make it more realistic imho

@Phoenix Rising
Cant wait to play with the new rules

Have seen one world with an ISD in my first campaign that i have played (Core) and was realy surprised an independent world have one and i have only 2 in my empire ........... maybe over scripts ... the independent worlds can make upgrades in here fleet over time to become with higher tech available to empire/alliance acess to then outdated ship designs .........

Hope to see in an not to long away time the CSA playable
But understand the high amount of work ..... but maybe it is an good point to clarify this in the docs/pdf as i have thinked it is in anyway playable

Regards
R-TEAM

[Henry X]

R-Team, you mentioned playing the Far Far Away campaign. I'm assuming that you must have an impressive computer to handle it. My poor little laptop can barely play that campaign, though it could play vanilla quite easily.

[P.O._210877]

That's a good point on the ISD availability; however, I don't believe there are too many of them around at all in our 18 BBY campaigns.

The problem is that the ISD in early Imperial period is an Empire exclusive ship. It would be MUCH more likely that the various defense fleets would have fielded Venators and Victories I. That is if they didn't go with the vast CIS's confiscated matériel. After all if the Empire sold a good number of Vic I to the CSA, why wouldn't it do the same with all the enemy's assets it acquired? It's sure as Hell, in my opinion, not like it would use them, so that leaves 3 likely outcomes : sell, scrap, left adrift. The first one accounts for their presence in certain parts of the galaxy. The second one means more and faster ISD production, and the third one accounts for underworld and rebel use.

Edited by P.O._210877, 30 July 2012 - 10:26 AM.

[Kitkun]

Looking at the files, it seems to me that most of the 'neutral' worlds with ISDs have them as Imperial-aligned but not necessarily controlled worlds. I.E. the Empire doesn't have them for balance.

[P.O._210877]

True, but then the Empire should receive some form of "tribute" from those worlds. I don't know if it's even possible but the "aligned" worlds, Empire or Rebel, should contribute in some way to their "parent" state. Maybe using the smuggler ability but with a new unit that would "establish" a presence on the planet. It could be done by designating which worlds are "not so neutral" and enabling the smuggler action on said worlds. For example, opening Anaxes to the Empire's agents and not to the Rebels'.

Edited by P.O._210877, 31 July 2012 - 03:56 PM.

[R-TEAM]

Hi,

@Henry X
Lenovo Thinkstation D10 2 x Intel Quad-Core Xeon E5460 at 3.16Ghz with 24GB RAM / 2 x ATI FirePro 8700 / Xonar Dx Audio / 2 SCSI-Raid chains.
(i doing serious 3D GFX with Maya and this is my Main PC ... )
Have the game installed on my sec. "Large" PC too = IBM Intellistation M Pro Intel P4 3.4Ghz/4MBCache 4GB RAM / ATI HD4850 1GB RAM / Xonar D1 Audio and here the big campaign is in galaxys map slow and from time to time very slugish - but playable ....
(the 2 PC is for my girlfriend - so no danger for my Main PC )

@Kitkun

i musst agree with P.O._210877 .... if the worlds have ISD because he are aligned with the empire then it musst in any way make an diff to "other" non empire worlds .... atm it is only an "non empire" world that musst be conquered .... and with ISD as enemys ...

btw.
Have seen diff colors on the galaxy map ... please correct/complete me :

Blue = Empire
Red = Alliance
Yellow = CSA (but doing nothing ATM except defend)
Grey = ?

Regards
R-TEAM

[evilbobthebob]

Grey are planets with unknown alignment. You have to attack them or send a probe to find out who owns them, and the probe may not always be successful. These are worlds with space and ground stealth.

As for worlds which are not Imperial but could be...well, mostly the reason is balance and challenge.

[R-TEAM]

Hi,

o.k. - thanks for the clarification
[on the colors and the reason for ISD on non Empire worlds ...]

An aditional suggestion i have found after longer play the big far-far-galaxy campaign ...
It is possible to have the part that is on the screen shown correct in the minimap ?
ATM it is not very helpfull and on start playing it is hard to found all systems wothout an guide who the screen part is sitting in relation to the galaxy minimap .... (after an longer game i know so-so who on the galaxy i am now .... but for new players it is hard)

Regards
R-TEAM

[Kitkun]

Nope. Another engine limitation.

[R-TEAM]

Hi,

thanks Kitkun
(why i am not surprised over the answer ........ )

Another question - can the space battle map maked larger ??

Regards
R-TEAM

[evilbobthebob]

When you say space battle map, do you mean the tactical "3D" map or the minimap? The space tactical maps are already quite large (20000 x 20000 units if I recall correctly) and all of the space station markers and obstacles have been spread out compared to previous versions of the mod (though you probably don't care about that comparison). It's difficult to make the maps larger because they will start to encroach on the space skybox (though that can be scaled, I suppose). It will also make the maps take a long time to traverse, which while more realistic is also rather tedious if you include the AI problems.