Thrawn's Revenge

Mod & Network News => News & Updates => Topic started by: Corey on June 09, 2013, 10:36:22 PM

Title: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Corey on June 09, 2013, 10:36:22 PM
...History...
"One Empire, one fleet-- only this will guarantee us victory." - Natasi Daala

Without the forceful presence of the Emperor, the Galactic Empire could not survive. After the death of Emperor Palpatine at Endor, the Galactic Empire split into several distinct factions run by individual warlords, admirals, Moffs and other prominent Imperial figures who are all vying for control of the former Empire. There were often dominant figures such as Ysanne Isard, Grand Admiral Thrawn, and then the reborn Emperor himself who managed to unite large sections of the former Empire to try to re-establish its dominance in the galaxy. After the final death of the Emperor at Byss, Admiral Natasi Daala convened a meeting of the most powerful Warlords at Tsoss Beacon in the deep core and killed them all, uniting the remnants of the Empire under her rule until she passed off leadership to Gilad Pellaeon in 12 ABY, dubbed "the old man of the Empire" for his long service. He curbed some of the Empire's more repressive policies and  would continue to lead the Imperial Remnant for the next 29 years. Most notably, he led through the signature of the Pellaeon-Gavrisom treaty with the New Republic and the Yuuzhan Vong War, where he negotiated the entrance of the Imperial Remnant into the Galactic Alliance to repel the extragalactic invaders.

(http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/mods/1/22/21018/thumb_300x150/Shot1.png) (http://www.moddb.com/mods/star-wars-ascendancy/images/dev-diary-shots-the-imperial-remnant#imagebox)(http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/mods/1/22/21018/thumb_300x150/Shot5.png) (http://www.moddb.com/mods/star-wars-ascendancy/images/dev-diary-shots-the-imperial-remnant1#imagebox)

...Faction Differentiation...

Before we get into the actual faction, we want to say a few things about how we go about developing them. The emphasis in developing the playable factions in Ascendancy has been on trying to make sure each faction has its own distinct playstyle. The base Sins had some success in this respect, but it was more in the way of one or two interesting unique techs per faction which were ultimately frustrating to play against and often involved little direct interaction with the player (for example, the TEC's insurrection tech). With regard to research in particular, we have shifted away from having each faction with the same 5/10/15% bonus to stat x types of research options, instead emphasizing the core aspects and ideologies of our factions and trying to bring them into the playstyle, along with providing some development along the lines of canonical events in Star Wars history. This means that not every tech will be a straight bonus; some techs will provide a buff to one facet, while reducing its effectiveness in another area. Research is no longer in a "research ALL the things" way, there will instead be some choices the player has to make on what they want to emphasize.

(http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/mods/1/22/21018/thumb_300x150/Shot3.png) (http://www.moddb.com/mods/star-wars-ascendancy/images/dev-diary-shots-the-imperial-remnant3#imagebox)(http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/mods/1/22/21018/thumb_300x150/Shot2.png) (http://www.moddb.com/mods/star-wars-ascendancy/images/dev-diary-shots-the-imperial-remnant4#imagebox)

...Playstyle...
"Fear will keep the local systems in line."-Grand Moff Tarkin

The Empire relies more on oppression and propoganda to keep its worlds in check, and as such its cultural and economic policies focus on preventing the spread of enemy culture and maintaining a strong hold on its own systems, as opposed to spreading its own culture. One of its most effective ways to spread and maintain its own culture and reduce enemy culture is to use its Star Destroyers to attack enemy systems or to maintain a military presence in that system, increasing their fear of reprisals by the Empire. It also has the means to convert some of its population into production through forced labour. As the game progresses, Imperial players will gain access to more liberal tech options in line with Pellaeon's leadership style, which, if researched, will sacrifice some of its bonuses for better relations with the other factions and the ability to spread its own culture without the need for violence.

"What the Empire would have done was build a super-colossal Yuuzhan Vong?killing battle machine."-Han Solo

Militarily, while in the early game the Remnant's vessels can usually stand up to enemy vessels on their own, their ships lag behind the later game ships of the other factions. The Empire instead focuses on building larger fleets focused on supporting one or two superships. Many parts of their tech aim at allowing a strength-in-numbers approach, letting them field larger numbers of slightly worse vessels faster than the other factions. However, unlike in other fleets, this gives the Imperial fleet an obvious target for its enemies to focus on.


(http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/mods/1/22/21018/thumb_300x150/Shot4.png) (http://www.moddb.com/mods/star-wars-ascendancy/images/dev-diary-shots-the-imperial-remnant2#imagebox)(http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/mods/1/22/21018/thumb_300x150/Sins_of_a_Solar_Empire_Rebellio_2013-02-17_16-32-10-10.png) (http://www.moddb.com/mods/star-wars-ascendancy/images/imperial-fleet#imagebox)


...Unit List...
Fighters: TIE Fighter, TIE Interceptor, TIE Bomber, TIE Defender, Scimitar Assault Bomber
Light Frigates: Sentinel, Lancer, Carrack, Lambda, Escort Carrier, Strike Cruiser
Heavy Frigates: Dreadnaught, Immobilizer-418, Vindicator, MTC, Victory-I, Victory-II
Capitals: Imperial-I, Imperial-II, Allegiance, Altor, World Devastator
Titans: Executor, Sovereign
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Rovert10 on June 09, 2013, 11:43:37 PM
A gorgeous introduction.
Shame that I have to crush the Empire under the power of the New Republic at least till the Vong makes their appearance.

So research has somewhat of an influence of the old ICW era system? You can move up the research but lose something much like moving up a tech/era would prevent you from building certain units like an Eclipse only it's in a much more subtle fashion.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: tlmiller on June 09, 2013, 11:53:57 PM
That's kinda neat.  Can't wait to get to try it out with the useless "everyone has the same tech" will be gone.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Lord Xizer on June 10, 2013, 01:25:36 AM
Very eloquently put indeed.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Corey on June 10, 2013, 01:27:16 AM
In general I guess you could look at it that way. This is, in general, less about switching between styles like the Remnant did in ICW (save for the liberalization options they get late game) and more about specific actions. I don't want to get too deeply into it since that information comes later, but for one example the Remnant has a tech called Forced Production which lets the Remnant sacrifice a percentage of the total health of ships they produce in order to produce them faster.

In other news, the quotes and history sections of these posts are helpful for inquisitive-types. Same kind of stuff as the UI and map had, so let's see what happens there.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Waffle Wagon on June 10, 2013, 08:53:06 AM
Fascinating. So can we expect to see a carryover of capital ship relative strengths from ICW? By that I mean will caps in Ascendancy follow the ascending power scale of: MC80<Ascendancy<MC80b<Syndic<ISD<New Class ships<Tector<Phalanx.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Rovert10 on June 10, 2013, 10:19:08 AM
Fascinating. So can we expect to see a carryover of capital ship relative strengths from ICW? By that I mean will caps in Ascendancy follow the ascending power scale of: MC80<Ascendancy<MC80b<Syndic<ISD<New Class ships<Tector<Phalanx.
That order doesn't make a whole lot of sense here. The MC80s are more than a match to an ISD. The Tector is an ISD with no fighters (ISDII is better). Ascendency I assume is at least on par to an ISD being a newer ship.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Enceladus on June 10, 2013, 10:41:21 AM
You guys keep on saying Tector for some reason...
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Rovert10 on June 10, 2013, 10:46:58 AM
 ???
Well it isn't in this mod but still?
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Waffle Wagon on June 10, 2013, 11:14:24 AM
That order doesn't make a whole lot of sense here. The MC80s are more than a match to an ISD. The Tector is an ISD with no fighters (ISDII is better). Ascendency I assume is at least on par to an ISD being a newer ship.

Well, I was going by the standards of ICW, in which the MC80 series has a bit of trouble dealing with ISD's unless micromanaged properly.  The MC90 is a different story. And despite its being a fighterless ship, The Tector should definitely not be underestimated, it can take a Nebula 1v1.

You guys keep on saying Tector for some reason...

Yea, I noticed that it is not in the Ascendancy unit list, I just mentioned it as part of the ship 'strength scale' from ICW.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Senza on June 10, 2013, 11:18:01 AM
Aw, no  Tector? v.v Alright, fine D: good write up, despite the lack of Tector. Did I mention that Tectors are awesome? Because they are.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Rovert10 on June 10, 2013, 11:30:29 AM
A Tector can 1v1 a Nebula Class? That doesn't make much sense. If the Nebula didn't bother to launch anything then maybe. But even then.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: tlmiller on June 10, 2013, 11:38:34 AM
Aw, no  Tector? v.v Alright, fine D: good write up, despite the lack of Tector. Did I mention that Tectors are awesome? Because they are.

And the Allegiance (which is in Ascendency) is everything the Tector was and more.  2.2 KM long purely combat-oriented combat ship designed after the new order took over so heavier weaponry and shields than the older Tector.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Waffle Wagon on June 10, 2013, 12:05:32 PM
A Tector can 1v1 a Nebula Class? That doesn't make much sense. If the Nebula didn't bother to launch anything then maybe. But even then.

Somewhere in the forums or the manual there was a list of ICW's capital ships in ascending order of power, and I believe the Tector was right above the Nebula and below the Phalanx. But hey, I could be wrong. My main question was whether the capital ship balance would remain more or less the same as it was in ICW.

Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Corey on June 10, 2013, 12:41:12 PM
Presently, the values on all ships are direct carryovers from Imperial Civil War. We don't know what the balance implications are yet of the new environment (Sins doesn'thave degarding damage as hardpoints get destroyed, longer firing ranges in general mean you can usually bring more weapons to bear on a single target, as well as a better system for splitting firepower, plus every shot is guaranteed to hit), but the ultimate goal is to keep the same general power structure as you see in ICW. Honestly, balancing is probably going to be the biggest focus of beta phase so these things have the potential to shift a lot.

Aw, no  Tector? v.v Alright, fine D: good write up, despite the lack of Tector. Did I mention that Tectors are awesome? Because they are.

In terms of role, the Tector does nothing the Allegiance can't, and barely does anything the ISDII can't as far as Ascendancy goes. There's also the added issue of readability in Sins; if we had the Tector, that's the majority of your capital ships having the EXACT same profile. In order to identify which ships are Tectors, which are ISDIs and which are ISDIIs, you'd have to select them individually, or spin your camera around to the bottom. We want to mitigate readability issues as much as possible for them.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Senza on June 10, 2013, 01:52:58 PM
A Tector can 1v1 a Nebula Class? That doesn't make much sense. If the Nebula didn't bother to launch anything then maybe. But even then.

In ICW, the Nebula is no match for the Tector (without power to weapons anyway, which is being removed in 2.1) in a 1v1. It's for balance reasons, because the NR fighters are so much better than the Remnant's, they need stronger capital ships to keep pace.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Lord Xizer on June 10, 2013, 04:03:00 PM

In terms of role, the Tector does nothing the Allegiance can't, and barely does anything the ISDII can't as far as Ascendancy goes. There's also the added issue of readability in Sins; if we had the Tector, that's the majority of your capital ships having the EXACT same profile. In order to identify which ships are Tectors, which are ISDIs and which are ISDIIs, you'd have to select them individually, or spin your camera around to the bottom. We want to mitigate readability issues as much as possible for them.


The Allegiance class was larger wasn't it?
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Corey on June 10, 2013, 04:10:25 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Lord Xizer on June 10, 2013, 04:23:55 PM
Hm, then I can't see the need for the Tector. Personally I thought it had major weaknesses not being able to defend itself with fighters. The design was purely battleship based which in a moving battle with an enemy who relies heavily on fighters is pretty pointless.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: tlmiller on June 10, 2013, 04:43:09 PM
Allegiance is 600 meters longer than the Tector.

Both of them are geared toward the same thing.  Heavily shielded, heavily armored weapons platforms that can crush opponents capital ships, but are very much designed to require support from a fleet, not to operate independently.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Lord Xizer on June 11, 2013, 01:04:56 AM
I prefer the Executor class if I'm going for cap ship annihilation. Good all around but slow, that's where the Vics come in.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Rovert10 on June 11, 2013, 08:33:44 AM
The Executor is more like destroy everything in your path.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: tlmiller on June 11, 2013, 09:12:05 AM
In an ideal world, I'd use Allegiances with Venators and Victory-II's supporting.  Still get a decent amount of fighters from the Venators and then hang back a bit to engage support ships, while the VSD's maneuver to tear through the enemies important ships as they concentrate on the Allegiances.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: saryehudah on July 18, 2013, 10:36:25 PM
Will you be adding the Tie Advanced?
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Crisiss on July 18, 2013, 10:46:41 PM
Will you be adding the Tie Advanced?
The TIE advanced wasn't really massed produced or used enough in general to be a mainline fighter, so doubtful.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Eclipse on July 20, 2013, 10:01:35 PM
The Executor is more like destroy everything in your path.

Yeah, altough the mod team hates super ship, I just love them. I am a "super ship spammer" when I play as the IR, and this won't be an exception. And as I will use all the super ships available the NR won't last
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Rovert10 on July 20, 2013, 10:57:26 PM
Yeah, altough the mod team hates super ship, I just love them. I am a "super ship spammer" when I play as the IR, and this won't be an exception. And as I will use all the super ships available the NR won't last
I don't think they hate them just they hate having absurd amounts of them just for the "rule of cool".
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Lord Xizer on July 21, 2013, 01:50:18 AM
I love the Executor class SSD but I try and space them out since I like the idea of them as tactical and staregic assets rather than mass spams
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Crisiss on July 21, 2013, 04:02:30 PM
I love the Executor class SSD but I try and space them out since I like the idea of them as tactical and staregic assets rather than mass spams

In ICW, whenever I had the financial ability to made a couple of SSDs, they would all be assigned their own 'fleet'. So I would have 3 Executors along with an armada of support ships all pushing the enemy at once, all on different fronts. Using 2 Executors in one engagement is kind of a waste, IMO.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Lord Xizer on July 22, 2013, 12:35:52 AM
In ICW, whenever I had the financial ability to made a couple of SSDs, they would all be assigned their own 'fleet'. So I would have 3 Executors along with an armada of support ships all pushing the enemy at once, all on different fronts. Using 2 Executors in one engagement is kind of a waste, IMO.

I always try and recreate famous battles with them or where they were stationed when I build them. Dathomir, Bastion, Odik II, Byss, Thyferra, Kuat depending on the era
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Zeron on July 23, 2013, 02:29:10 PM
Well we despised Super Ships in ICW because well, the engine is awful at handling them. There was really no way to accurately represent them in the EaW engine. As well, they encourage the worst sort of fanboys who want to add every ship they can find without regard to balance or even considering why on earth we would put them in in the first place. And fact remains that they were amazingly rare in the SW universe. Only the most powerful people in the expanded universe ever had even one, and usually they weren't actually committed to combat most of the time for fear of losing them. In the ICW timeline they are pretty much irreplaceable, outside of the Emperor's fleet. And in a larger sense, they were almost entirely worthless. Sure they may dominate most battles they are in, but for the price of one you could field and support a much larger fleet of ISDs that would be much more effective in actually fighting your enemy. SSDs can only be in one place at a time, and considering that the ICW was a galaxy wide conflict...well it's far more useful to have 25 ISDs that you can send to 25 different battles at once than having 1 SSD that you can send to 1 battle...and then lose the other 24.
Title: Re: Dev Diary #2: The Imperial Remnant
Post by: Lord Xizer on July 23, 2013, 09:53:05 PM
Yes they were based loosely off the Yamato and Musashi from WWII. Both were created to dominate through sheer size and mass firepower any other ships afloat. Ironically this also made them irreplaceable assets to the Imperial Japanese Navy who kept them back from almost all main engagments(much like most SSDs) limiting their effectiveness to a mere fear factor. That they both succumbed to mass fighter and bomber attacks just further resembles their Star Wars counterparts.

To a degree I can admit there are some decent virtues to the SSD concept. It is a powerful fleet unto itself and required less crew than 25 ISDs would have. It's fear factor and usefulness in engagements where they were present cannot be discounted. That they were held back or often misused is more of a sign of mismanagement by those who possessed them. Much like the IJN badly misused Yamato and Musashi in WWII. It doesn't detract from the ships themselves.