12 replies to this topic

[Aizen Teppa]

One thing which always gets under my skin is than certain ships & fighters retreating from battle even if they shouldn't [can't]. 

 

TIE-Fighters without single carrier ship (or any Imperial fighter bar TIE-Defender) or IPV jumping into hyperspace. Give me a break. Is it possible to achieve that? If not directly (xml config for each ship) then perhaps via external xml script. Even if player choose to retreat from battle script will auto-obliterate ships incapable of hyper-jump after retreat counter drops to 0.00.

[evilbobthebob]

Wish we could, unfortunately that makes such ships effectively useless as anything but a planetary defence force because setting a ship as a carrier allows it to transport and infinite number of craft without hyperdrives, whether they be TIEs or an IPV.

[Aizen Teppa]

Well there is nothing wrong with static planetary defense force as such. Given proper funds, rebuilding 10 IPVs or 50 squadrons of TIE Interceptors takes few moments. Even rebuilding 4 or 5 lvl 1 stations is a trifle-long. 

 

Out of curiosity. If one ship (any) is locked as non-hyperdrive capable does that mean that other ships in the orbit with jump capability also become locked in the process because of that one vessel?

[evilbobthebob]

Yes, any ship in a fleet without a hyperdrive will stop the rest of the fleet from jumping, as far as I know.

[Aizen Teppa]

Oh dear. That is retarded beyond any comprehension. 

 

We need to find responsible dev (or group) and pelt him (them) with rotten eggs until it is fixed. 

[a.fake.name]

Related question/idea:

The way hero's can be upgraded if the proper yard is present, can that be adapted to allow for (if research station is present) upgrading vessels ?

If so, it could be used to upgrade the compliment of a ship, allowing for non-hyperdrive ships to get removed from the build list and instead just be disposable fighters.

[Aizen Teppa]

I think a bit of villa is in order. Removing basic TIEs (bomber, fighter, interceptor)  from building option menu and moving them to reinforcement pool of star bases (separate from Golan defense platforms). Of course star base 1 would at most get 1 TIE-F/I, while lvl 5 will provide steady stream of cannon fodder until squadron or station is obliterated. IPV is another matter. Either keep it as it is or replace.

 

I know that PR is canon oriented, but I always felt that all orbital facilities were too weak. Especially lvl 4/5 star bases and G3 platform. Did extensive modification to provide much more teeth and bite for all of them. No longer will Bulwark or Praetor smash 6 lvl 5 star bases like annoying flies; taking no (or negligible) damage in the process). 

[a.fake.name]

I think a bit of villa is in order. Removing basic TIEs (bomber, fighter, interceptor)  from building option menu and moving them to reinforcement pool of star bases (separate from Golan defense platforms). Of course star base 1 would at most get 1 TIE-F/I, while lvl 5 will provide steady stream of cannon fodder until squadron or station is obliterated. IPV is another matter. Either keep it as it is or replace.

 

I know that PR is canon oriented, but I always felt that all orbital facilities were too weak. Especially lvl 4/5 star bases and G3 platform. Did extensive modification to provide much more teeth and bite for all of them. No longer will Bulwark or Praetor smash 6 lvl 5 star bases like annoying flies; taking no (or negligible) damage in the process). 

I pretty much agree.
If it lacks a hyperdrive, remove it's buildable status, and have it be part of a ship/station compliment.
This should apply to ALL craft, including the early IPV models lacking FTL capability.

As for stations, the golan stations should get secondary batteries, and in the case of the Golan 3 a secondary battery and a tertiary battery.

However I'm against any station having an infinite supply of garrison craft, once the complement is destroyed it should stay gone.

Also, I'm in favor of replacing the EAW starbase models as shipyards with something that actually LOOKS like a shipyard.
The XW series had a great number of those.

[Aizen Teppa]

One more attempt to deal with hyperdrive.

 

There are no separate HP to target, but each ship bigger than fighter still is configured from various HP inside xml. So is it possible to create separate HP for hyperdrive? I thinking something along the lines we got in Supremacy. Ship with damaged hyperdrive stuck in orbit while rest of the fleet was capable of moving. Adapting this for PR, ship with let's say less than 3%, 5% or 10% (depending on size) of health wouldn't be allowed to jump/retreat.

[evilbobthebob]

I don't believe that would be possible without some form of Lua script attached to the unit. The easier way to do it would be to simply add Engine hardpoints back in. If that gets destroyed then so would the ability for that unit to retreat, if I remember correctly. The team has considered the return of "utility" hardpoints, but it's not something we're in a hurry to add back in.

[Aizen Teppa]

No. No visible hard-points. Game with visible HP is so trivial that not even worth contemplating. That's why I (and many others) love PR so much.

[a.fake.name]

HP are a nice concept, but the way it works in this engine is horrible.

The way PR does it now works best I think.


Past that, I could see adding the occasional hardpoint for unique vessels where the design team feels it is warranted, but they would need to be on a case by case basis.

[evilbobthebob]

No. No visible hard-points. Game with visible HP is so trivial that not even worth contemplating. That's why I (and many others) love PR so much.

 

Then your suggestion won't work, I'm afraid. The closest we get to disables right now are ion cannons, once a ship has been hit by enough of them the ship is slowed and can't jump to hyperspace.