Topics

1

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.

• Reply
• Quote

2

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?

• Reply
• Quote

3

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

• Reply
• Quote