Messages

1

Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Concussion Missiles

« on: February 04, 2020, 03:44:41 PM »

Do they also manage to blow up fighters in this version of Thrawn's Revenge as well? Never fielded any 9apps ships that had many of them on. Don't see a need to use MC40s as long as the Dauntless exists.

I quite enjoy the changes to the economy, now you have to think about your moves and also conserve your forces (can't spam huge fleets), particularly on harder difficulties. Like I said before, the mod is awesome, it just seems that these are huge changes that have changed the flow of the mod.

• Reply
• Quote

2

Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Anyone have luck with fighter / bomber heavy fleets?

« on: January 30, 2020, 03:04:18 PM »

Hi All,

Relative to vanilla sins, where carrier spam, hangar defense and just fighters in general are epic, I have had a lot of trouble getting good value from carriers used in any capacity. Whether it is taking a few of the smaller ones, or building dedicated carrier capital price chopper direct connect ships.

I tried with rebels and haven't played a ton with the Hand, but would give them another go (lack of titan is a huge drawback for the big matches I enjoy the most).

Any advice on getting good value via target selection, split between fighters and bombers (I've tried all bombers and 50/50 splits and eventually just gave up and went 100% defensive with all fighters as I didn't feel like I was doing any serious damage with bluestacks bombers) or fleet composition?

Also the way that damage is applied in this game (when shot is fired), makes it hard to tell when bombers are actually doing any damage... any better way to judge effectiveness?

And are they better vs. shields or hull?

Really any guidance from anyone who uses fighters and bombers a lot in this mod would be great!

The only practical advice I have is, if you feel like checking out ground battles, play a lot as SPAA and shoot at planes. I used to have terrible problems when I started playing trying to hit fighters with defensive guns. I just delegated it to the AI and hoped for the best.

• Reply
• Quote

3

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Ship Movement

« on: January 27, 2020, 12:50:31 PM »

Hello to Corey and the rest of the team. I do not know if this has been addressed but the way ships move in TR:ICW kind of bugs me. I don't mean the terrible pathing, I know nothing can be done about it. It just bugs me that these city sized ships stop on a dime and move very fast. In original EAW when ships would stop they would drift a little, giving the impression of mass and forward momentum. I was just wondering if something like this could be brought to the ipage mod. The speed of ships bugs me less but I would also like to know if it would be possible to slow down the bigger ships and speed up the smaller ones, just to add another layer of depth to an already amazing mod. And saying that I would also like to say this is in no way a complaint, just an inquiry. Y'all have done an amazing job and I appreciate all the hard work y'all do, thanks.

Yes the work done was really amazing. I am grateful to them for this. Although I do not have any ship that bugs me.

• Reply
• Quote

4

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Land Skirmishes

« on: January 26, 2020, 02:11:16 PM »

I know this have been probably acknowledged since centuries, but, uhm, the AI is not working in the land skirmishes - not always, but most time they stay idle without conquering mines etc., attacking only with some pitiful infantries bazoocam. But sometimes it works fine. Is there some kind of logic behind this? Like, maybe only some particular factions work on some particular land maps? Has anybody found a sense in it?

Unrelated and quite stupid question. Since I've only played the huge Galactic Conquests protonvpn. until today, I gotta ask: if I start a "historical" GC in age 2, let's say, and I kill my leader Thrawn, am I gonna get the Palps man?

I did notice AI is not working in the land skirmishes but did not pay much attention to it. But now I get it.

• Reply
• Quote