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 - taupin121

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 7
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: New Republic interdictors
« on: April 24, 2018, 02:44:54 AM »
As a mainly New Republic player I can say that I wouldn't mind losing the CC7700.

That being said I do use it and I don't have a strong opinion either way.

Same here. And maybe true for the team too as Corey asked on this topic. But maybe someone will have a good input on that subject.

Looks like the team is leaning more toward gameplay convenience for the players rather than adhering super close to lore here, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Indeed, I agree with you but as Corey asked and consider a change possible, it's probably that the CC-7700 have not much impact on the overall gameplay.

I'm also an old D6 player which was where a lot of the TR stuff originally comes from, the material was supplied to Zahn for Heir to the Empire.

Yes I know. It's not because I know the new stuff that I don't know the old stuff (Rebellion video game, RPG sourcebooks,...) and the genesis of these milestone projects :laugh:

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: New Republic interdictors
« on: April 23, 2018, 03:35:01 PM »
I have never actually seen it in a legends book or other material (I read a lot not many comics though).

Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor and the other event I mention is from the Essential Guide to Warfare.

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / New Republic interdictors
« on: April 23, 2018, 08:32:12 AM »

Corey asked "Do we really need CC-7700?" for the release of patch 10 of the Beta as there is now the boarding shuttle.

In my opinion interdictors should be scares. Remember how Solo had to ally with Rogriss to get one. That being said, we (only) know of the use of CC-7700 in the post-RotJ during the Shadowspawn campaign and during the last imperial campaign (which get its own GC in 2.2). I propose that the CC-7700 to be not buildable but that a handful would be available at the beginning of GC starting in 4-6 ABY and at the beginning of Final Imperial Push. Or that we can build it only in Era 1 and/or 5 (when Corellia is part of the NR).

And there's also Illor who should be available after Isard takes power.

What's your opinion on this guys ?

MC 90's cost 10 fleet points I use them but I don't love them.

I think you are talking about MC80 Home One type (the ~3 km long battleship). The MC90 is a 7 pop cap star destroyer-sized ship with a dark skin (it's a ship from Dark Empire).

Fixed missing Eriadu and Maldrood starting heroes in era progressives (Veers, Trier, Okins, Ramier)

Will Leonia Tavira be available in era progressive GCs (after Isard takes control) ?

Is there a way to get more fleet heroes for the NR (namely A'baht) in era-progressive GCs ?

I think I'll have to wait to know how to unlock heroes in the manual :laugh: .

Survival mode with IR :

Ordering an Acclamator give nothing while ordering an Impstar Deuce give you an Imperial I and an Imperial II (same is true for the Victory II which gave VSD-I + VSD-II).

Only the Vindicator and the MTC (only one Bomber squadron) spawn fighters.


Survival mode with NR :

At wave 5, Pelleaon spawn at the South-West corner, stay there and my ships refuse to go there or close to it (except if I order them to attack)

Some ship spawn squadrons (Corona, Majestic, Nebulon-B, Sacheen) without the animation while other spawn no fighters (Nebula, Endurance, MC80, MC80b, MC90, BAC, Quasar, MC40). Not sure if normal, we start with an Assault Frigate but we can't built more.

News, Dev Diaries & Announcements / Re: Revan's Revenge
« on: April 01, 2018, 05:06:42 PM »

Well nobody believed it last time :-X

I can't stop me to imagine an era progressive system set in the Old Republic 8=)


Thank you for letting us know the team's projects and for your hard work.

I'm very looking forward to that, particulary the new models for New Class ships and new maps for Ascendancy :)

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Uglies
« on: March 21, 2018, 03:12:53 PM »
Shielded TIE Interceptors are present for Eriadu and possibly Era 2 Remnant.

I didn't know that, that's good news.

neat. I do remember the Invids under Tavira using Uglies besides the Clutches, though i might be wrong about that.

I think you are confusing with the Uglies of Kavil's Corsairs of which Leonia was a part for a time.

That being said I am very looking forward to the Invids' Tri-Fighter "Clutch". For 2.3 maybe ?

Ascendancy Discussion / Re: VSD1 VS VSD2
« on: March 13, 2018, 10:37:43 AM »
The Crimson Command Victory are not present in the spreadsheet, what's their stats compared to the regular Victory ?

Star Wars Discussion / Re: ICW Tabletop Game
« on: March 12, 2018, 04:28:22 AM »

I've tested Armada on Vassal and found it very interesting. Is anybody have produced cards for Thrawn's Revenge's ships? I would really interested to add ships from the mods to the current ship roster. I found some here.

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: The megador
« on: March 08, 2018, 05:22:19 AM »
Unbelievable that they used that "Super-class" term up to Invincible :-\

Star Wars Discussion / Re: Novelizations.
« on: March 01, 2018, 02:51:36 AM »
That's stupid that they will not tell us what is canon and not. Yet somehow forces of Destiny is still canon.

Yes it is, way more canon than the things I've mentioned.

The issue i had was that he was saying anything stated in those books was Null and Void and arent canon

As long as they depict exactly the movie they are :angel:
That's probably why the novelization of TLJ is coming that late.

Lego Star Wars(yes it has its on canonity)

In fact, events from the Freemaker Adventures are mentioned in canon sources (Poe Dameron comic books for example). So... ???


Both Storm Commando and Raptors are elite troops, with own armors, starfighters and use somewhat unique doctrine. So hard to chose ;D

Star Wars Discussion / Re: Novelizations.
« on: February 28, 2018, 02:46:23 AM »

It has been said that "the novelizations are canon until they contradict with the movies". From that you can argue they are or they aren't canon. The point is, as it has always been, that the film makers don't care of the books, novels,... when they made their movies (hence the old canon rankings which still exist if not by name).

But is that worst than the new policy to retale a story in a story so the first story is half canon ? You know what I mean if you know Star Wars Adventures, some of the Junior Novelizations, All Creatures Great and Small, Phasma novel, The Legends of Luke Skywalker and last but not least, From A Certain Point Of View with no less that 40 stories that contradict between them and can hardly considered canon. So nothing is sure in these stories, if a future inconsistency appears they will be like "hey, you know the story of this book never happened, it's just a in-universe fairy tale". And there's more and more of this half-canon stuff.

Imperial Civil War Community Mods / Re: Under Construction submod
« on: February 24, 2018, 09:25:20 AM »
We also plan on implementing historical scenario battles where you can play battles like Tralus, fall of coruscant in 6 ABY, Bilbringi, Vahaba, Selegis, Orinda and Anx Minor with the forces that were there historically. The hope is to make these historical battles multiplayer.

That sounds awesome :)

The Lounge / Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« on: February 16, 2018, 02:04:51 PM »
Interesting point of view.

Before the War, the Americans didn't think the Japanese to be capable to refuel in high sea and to conduct disciplined carrier based air raid while pre-war exercises had proved that Pearl Harbor was at risk. The Japanese got insight from the raid on Taranto (from both side) while the American still believed no torpedo attack could be conducted in a harbor.
A well know aviation mag published in 1941 an article about japanese air forces and said they couldn't be good pilot as their eyesight was hapered by their diet based on rice and because of their slanting eyes... They never tough of Japan as more than a turbulent yaping country.

I propose another: the Japanese won the war. They turned their defeat, after two atomic bombs, into a fruitful partnership with the United States. In this region, those who have really lost are the Koreans, subjected to the same partition as Germany... While they were the invadeds and not the invaders.

That is another war, the Cold War, who dictated it. And they're still denying a good number of war crimes in the way.

The Zero Fighter was was very manoeuvrable, and the Nakajima Ki-84 competed with his American counterparts.

Manoeuvrability is good but no that important if you use the good tactics. But Ki-84, N1K2-J, Ki-100 and J2M were on par with their american counterparts, same can be true for other types of aircraft. But as I said, raw performance did not all.

The Lounge / Re: Could Japan have won the pacific war?
« on: February 16, 2018, 12:24:04 PM »
For instance, their planes were pretty much outdated by 1944-45, and the United States was blasting them out of the sky.

The planes they introduced in late 1944 and 1945 were up to the Allied standards but as their planes were lagging behind in 1943 and early 1944, flying without protection (either armor or self-sealing fuel tanks) and their pilots were on the front line until (definitely) losts, by late 1944 there was only a handful confirmed pilots available that had to cope with their ill-trained wingmen (Japan had difficulty, thanks to US subs and minelaying B-29s, to import oil from Dutch East Indies and what was imported was of poor quality), poor manufacturing of the planes (they sent most of their workers, and also most of the skilled aircraft mechanics, in combat) and, of course, overwhelming superiority of the allied air forces (Japan produced 75,000 aircraft during the War while the USA produced about 300,000). Anyway it was more a question of pilot or oil than aircraft.

The Japanese also couldn't replace their losses, and it got to the point where they thought kamikaze attacks on American ships would be more effective than trying to engage them by conventional means (torpedoes, dive bombers, etc.)

Japanese aircraft have not sunk an allied carrier for 2 years when they took this decision. On the first official (I mean by a dedicated unit) Kamikaze attack they sunk one. It was on 25 October 1944. But what they did not know is that a regular bomber sunk a US carrier on 24 October.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 7
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!