Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - baharr

Pages: [1]
1
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Faction Guide 2.25
« on: August 29, 2018, 11:21:57 AM »
Another thing that's worth mentioning is that if you play on Admiral difficulty (according to the DifficultyAdjustments.xml, anyway) the enemy gets a flat 20% bonus to damage, hull, and shields. I always mod this out (change the values from "1.2" to "1.0") and I feel like it affects the performance of certain units quite dramatically. The poor ISDII, for example, becomes much more viable because if enemies don't get a mad 20% shield bonus its turbolaser armament becomes much more effective, and its shields hold up longer, too, if enemy bombers don't get a 20% attack buff. TIEs in general also seem to perform a lot better.

Then again I can't 100% confirm those values actually do anything and this may just be me imagining things because I want to love the basic ISDs  :laugh:

(It also seems to give ground battles less of a "Benny Hill" vibe, but then again, that might just be my imagination)

2
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Faction Guide 2.25
« on: August 24, 2018, 01:07:58 PM »
Also, do you have thoughts about some of the ground unit rosters? I'm always curious to see how people fight on the ground.

When playing as the Empire, I like to use either a wall of stormtroopers and AT-STs backed up by SPMA-Ts and AT-ATs to slooowly grind across the map, or use a mix of  XR-85s and 2M tanks to zip speedily along and bypass resistance to wreck generators and factories.

When playing as the Pentastar Alignment, my strategy is a lot more uniform - two A9 fortresses, some Pentastar Enforcers to capture stuff, LAAT gunships and Saber tanks to scout ahead and clear infantry, and AT-APs and Hailfires behind the A9s to do the heavy lifting when it comes to blowing stuff up.

I've generally found AT-TEs to be completely useless.

I also like your assessments of the factions, generally I think you're spot on and there's definitely some useful tips in there (like how Acclamators are great for the PA because they get V19s and actually have fighter reserves to deploy, I didn't know either of these things and had been ignoring them!)

3
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Faction Guide 2.25
« on: August 21, 2018, 02:58:14 PM »
Looking forward to these, I enjoyed your previous thread!

4
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Selection rings
« on: August 21, 2018, 02:55:06 PM »
I'd like to know, too. Kind of annoying that the Empire is called the Imperial Remnant in the selection rings but not the GCs.

5
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: So, which units need rebalanced?
« on: August 20, 2018, 07:27:40 PM »
Nonetheless, ISD1s lag dramatically far behind ISD2s (while costing almost the same) and even ISD2s are of extremely questionable value compared to the Tector, imo - ideally each of these ships ought to have a role in the Imperial line-up and right now it's more of a ISD1 < ISD2 < Tector sort of hierarchy of quality. Which doesn't feel right to me.

As an aside, another unit that ought to be looked at is

Megamaser Tank
These things are indestructible and deadly. So far the only way I could find to bring them down was to swarm them (and I mean swarm) them with PLEX soldiers and hit fast-forward. Bombing runs and orbital bombardments work too, but that seems... a bit overkill.

One MMT will happily annihilate 3-4 AT-ATs or entire armoured companies because
a.) its main gun fires quickly, is perfectly accurate, and is a guaranteed one-hit-kill against most targets
b.) it can take beastly amounts of punishment.

I love the concept of the unit, but I feel its main gun either needs a longer recharge time or it needs to be more fragile. Conceptually the MMT seems to be more of a sniper when currently it's a frontline brick.

6
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: So, which units need rebalanced?
« on: August 19, 2018, 04:17:52 PM »
Interesting about the various ISD bugs. Does the team know/has Corey acknowledged on the streams that they're aware of them?

7
Imperial Civil War Tech Support / Serenno GC bug
« on: August 19, 2018, 04:13:18 PM »
Hi,

In both the Art of War and Essence of War campaigns, Serenno starts with capital shipyards even though it's only supposed to be able to get up to heavy frigate shipyards.

8
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: So, which units need rebalanced?
« on: August 15, 2018, 06:17:05 PM »
Sorry, yes, I meant 2.2.5. - the current version on the Steam Workshop.

9
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / So, which units need rebalanced?
« on: August 15, 2018, 09:23:37 AM »
So I'm loving 2.2 - great job, TR team!

Now that I've sunk ~25 hours into this version I have some ideas about which units need to be rebalanced.

In this thread I'd like to ask people to contribute their impressions and ideas about which units need buffed/nerfed, how, and why.

Let's get started:

Imperial Star Destroyer
So the venerable ISD1 is frankly garbage in this version, sorry. The thing is that it isn't a bad ship - I use captured ISD1s all the time in my NR runs and they are fantastic - but there isn't any reason to build them as any of the Imperial factions because the ISD2 costs basically the same and outclasses the ISD1 in every conceivable way.

To remedy this I would make it worth using by giving it a role in the Imperial line of battle as a cheap, massed frontline brawler. Basically, I'd leave the poor ISD1 as it is, but buff the ISD2 (the ISD2's anti-shield damage is shockingly bad, for example), bring the ISD2's pop cost up to 8, and bring the ISD2's production cost in line with the Tector. That way the ISD1 would have a role as the "cheap" (by Imperial standards, anyway) rank-and-file capital ship it ought to be.

Oh, actually, now that we've mentioned the...

Tector Star Destroyer
This thing is a beast that should not be. Its DPS is mad, its resilience is even more mad. For a similar cost in pop and credits, you could have 2 ISD1s or 1 Tector + 3 Escort Carriers, and the Tector fleet would wreck the ISD1s without the Tector even dropping its shields. It needs a nerf - it's supposed to be based off the ISD1 chassis, but armoured, so maybe keep it tanky, reduce its damage output, and bring it up to 8 pop as well. This way it can fill the role of a mini-Allegiance or a sort of Imperial Intego, a massive capital brawler that trades broadsides with the big boys without flinching. Which is, I believe, its intended role.

Because currently it's just a no-brainer, every Imperial fleet worth its salt has a Tector (or four) and honestly I think that's a bit silly.

Anyway, that's some of my ideas so far. What does everyone here think?

10
News & Updates / Re: Slight Delay
« on: April 01, 2018, 05:43:11 AM »
Not to mansplain modding to you guys ( :P ), but one thing that is worth looking into is how Steam responds weirdly to UAC in Win 7/8/10, even if you disable UAC. I used to get serious crashes in other mods (most notably for Medieval II: Total War) when I had Steam installed in Program Files - moving Steam into the base C:\ directory instead fixed a significant amount of glitchiness, random crashes, and savegames failing to load for me.

Anyway! Huge fan of the mod, and good luck :)

11
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: economy buildings
« on: January 13, 2018, 01:32:51 PM »
Huh, I had no idea upkeep was present in the 2.2 demo. I think that's why I had a more sensible time with it, economically-speaking :)

I'm sure the team has had this feedback before but I like the new upkeep system. Definitely keep it!

12
Ascendancy Tech Support / 1.1 Strings corrections
« on: August 26, 2017, 08:17:58 AM »
Hi,

I'm loving 1.1 so far, but there are a few "no string found" errors in the text. I've corrected them in my game - here's a list of all the ones I could find.

- IDS_CAPITALSHIP_INTEGO_DESCRIPTION does not exist, instead there are two IDS_CAPITALSHIP_PHALANX_DESCRIPTION entries, one of which is for the Intego
- IDS_REMNANTRESEARCH_FORTRESSWORLDS_DESCRIPTION and IDS_REMNANTRESEARCH_FORTRESSWORLDSTWO_DESCRIPTION are accidentally listed as "FORRESWORLD", lacking the T in FORTRESS
- IDS_SPAWNHERO_PELLAEON_DESCRIPTION and IDS_SPAWNHERO_THRAWN_DESCRIPTION don't exist, I just copied their ship descriptions for these entries
- The Dauntless, Proficient, Smuggler, and I think one other NR ship (sorry, can't remember which one now, I fixed it yesterday and foolishly didn't keep a changelog) have incorrect counterDescriptionStringID, meaning they are assigned one that doesn't exist
- Also, the Smuggler has no icon - I don't know how to fix this and would love any pointers because it's annoying me :)

Pages: [1]
Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!