Messages

1

Imperial Civil War Community Mods / Re: Balance & Flavor submod for Imperial Civil War 2.1

« on: September 10, 2016, 02:44:15 AM »

I am having a blast with this submod.
Thanks and I hope to see it updated when 2.2 comes along 

I'm glad you're enjoying it . And yes, this will probably be updated for 2.2. However, don't expect too many new things as it's been almost two years since I did any modding for ICW. In this regard, the Thrawn's Revenge modding team has done well in picking up the baton focusing on the Warlords, Post-Endor timeline and adding more heroes. All things this submod would have added had I continued further with this submod back in 2014.

I just tried playing the Orinda campaign, and I noticed the Imperial costs just as much as in vanilla, putting it as less expensive than a Venator, is this intentional or a mistake/bug?

Intentional. Unlike the Pentastar Venator that relies on TIE Fighters, TIE Bombers, V-Wings and Torrents, the Imp Venator carries far more deadly A9s, TIE Ints and TIE Bombers. The cost of ships is scaled according to their firepower, pop cost and health plus the cost of fighter complement with the cost of reserve fighter squadrons scaled down. Unlike in vanilla ICW, the Venator has capital grade shields instead of frigate shields and both TIE Ints and A9s rank among the second highest cost tier for fighters.

• Reply
• Quote

2

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Orinda to Celanon The Death of the Reaper

« on: May 19, 2016, 02:46:13 PM »

Already implemented in Balance & Flavor  .

• Reply
• Quote

3

Imperial Civil War Community Mods / Re: Jerec's Seven Dark Jedi for ICW

« on: April 27, 2016, 04:24:54 PM »

How could I not be in favor of adding Gamorrean darksiders to a Corporate Fascist faction? It would be glorious.

• Reply
• Quote

4

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Torpedo Sphere

« on: April 20, 2016, 06:02:23 PM »

What if the torpedo sphere could only fire its torpedoes at Golans, Space stations, and possibly SSDs? They would have poor fire control, but still be useful for sieging a planet.

I love this idea and it would also fill a weakness in the Imp roster in not having any anti-station ships.

Alternatively, could the defiler's sabotage ability be reworked somehow? I'd be thrilled if I could knock out some defenses from orbit before attempting an invasion.

This should be possible, though if implemented, I'd like to see it cost relatively much (around 3000 or so). Expending tens of thousands torpedoes to nuke a poor little barracks through planetary shielding must be damn expensive.

• Reply
• Quote

5

Imperial Civil War Community Mods / Re: Adding SDs to New Republic

« on: April 18, 2016, 07:55:06 AM »

Tech levels for the Rebels faction go from 0-4 instead of 1-5, so if the tech level in the XML is still 1, you can't build star destroyers in era 1 as the New Republic, because their era 1 is actually tech level 0 in XML.

• Reply
• Quote

6

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: The bothan spy net and NR spying

« on: April 12, 2016, 03:16:38 PM »

Add Winter as a stealth/intel hero?

Yes please. Winter and/or Wraiths instead of Cracken for variety in some GCs.

• Reply
• Quote

7

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: GC Discussion: Difficulty Ratings

« on: April 03, 2016, 04:05:01 PM »

Final Imperial Push is a well-balanced GC that provides challenges for all 3 factions, so either Hard or Normal for EotH and NR, Hard for IR. If you remove buildable fighter squadrons or reduce their recruitment priority to prevent IR fighter spam that is very prominent in Era 5 and easily countered I would say Hard for everyone.

Thrawn Campaign either normal or easy for both.

Reunification Hard for IR (well Hardest unless you know what you're doing, in which case it is Normal), Easy/Normal for NR.

BFC Hard for NR, Easy/Normal for Yevetha.

Any Era 1 starting IR GC = Easiest.

• Reply
• Quote

8

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Retreat times

« on: March 17, 2016, 09:40:00 AM »

that can be done?
HOW?

GameConstants.xml:

   <Space_Retreat_Attrition_Factor>0.0</Space_Retreat_Attrition_Factor>
    <Land_Retreat_Attrition_Factor>0.0</Land_Retreat_Attrition_Factor>
    <Blockade_Run_Attrition_Factor>0.2</Blockade_Run_Attrition_Factor>

What I don't know is whether these factors actually function like chance per unit modifiers as mentioned in their comments section, or simply "20% of all units are destroyed during retreat". They do work, however, and adding anywhere from 0.05-0.2 chance to space retreats makes careless assaults potentially very costly endeavours. In conjunction with the "defending forces stay hidden" planetary ability makes even well planned invasions on certain planets a bit of a gamble.

AFAIK reserves aren't affected.

Well, in canon Zsinj was very careful about deploying the Iron Fist since it couldn't just jump away from the system after committing to a battle.

• Reply
• Quote

9

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Retreat times

« on: March 16, 2016, 08:26:10 PM »

I wouldn't be in favor of increasing retreat times since it would also increase the time spent actually not playing the mod and the same thing can be achieved by increasing the damage and speed modifiers used during retreats. Speaking of those modifiers, EotH has considerably smaller retreat penalties in addition to their shorter retreat time.

Now here is an alternative idea: Reduce the damage penalties suffered during the retreat, add a small attrition chance for all space retreats. Could do a good job of restricting all you Imperial players with your gamey "jump in and out with SSDs" tactics if there was a chance that the SSD would be obliterated flying into a black hole in a blind hyperspace jump .

• Reply
• Quote

10

Ascendancy Discussion / Re: NR Scout and possible Cruiser add

« on: March 15, 2016, 08:44:00 AM »

Where would be a good place to go for sources on ships/ship power then? I tend to use Wook quite a bit to compare ships. And if that's the case, maybe the Mk I could be upgraded to be more of a fast brawler. I mean, that's another thing, I'm a huge fan of the Dreadnaught, both Victory SDs, and the Vindicator. Let's just say I use the boarding party ability a ton. Hearing all this is definitely enlightening about the Mk I, and I'm becoming a bigger fan of it, now my suggestion would be to up the ante on it, instead of it being an anti-starfighter/anti-frigate ship.

It's perfectly fine to use Wook, most of us do, as long as you stay critical and keep in mind that it's the sources that count. And of course, now that most sources are legends you can pick and choose what you want to fit your personal canon. I tend to value how a ship's abilities were thought to be by the author that designed them and/or how they appear in the movies/novels the first time we see them. For example, the K-Wing never had turreted lasers when it first appeared and I'm fine with that since I prefer it as an Early Cold War nuclear bomber-type that relies on outflying enemy interceptors on its way to hit the target. Similarly most later sources keep telling us about how the Y-Wing is slow and rugged, yet that doesn't match their original design as a bomber stripped-down to maximise speed or their performance in the movies (in ANH Y-Wings are not rugged but fragile, in RotJ we see Y-Wings casually vaping TIEs and then flying inside the DSII superstructure alongside A- and X-Wings, chased by TIE Interceptors)

• Reply
• Quote

11

Ascendancy Discussion / Re: NR Scout and possible Cruiser add

« on: March 13, 2016, 05:21:51 PM »

I wouldn't place much stock on the type and number of weapons listed for any ship on the Wook as it is not a primary source but rather a bunch of fanboys bickering about their personal preferences. Many ships have had several different weapon configurations listed for them in different sources over the years. Wook tends to use the most recent one, though that doesn't necessarily make it any better than earlier accounts. And sources are sometimes misunderstood, for example the TIE Bomber on the Wook is stated to have twice the warhead load it is actually given in the original source.

Recently FFG has been updating a number of previously undergunned MonCal ships to have much heavier weapons.

And I personally don't really care how many weapon emplacements a single ship has, since it's the power output that counts IMO.

As for the Assault Frigates, in the few written sources about the Mk.II it is described as a light, fast, MonCal shielded ship, whereas in their first appearance in the Raid on Obroa-Skai four Assault Frigate Mk.I:s together with their fighter complements have Pellaeon with the Chimaera resigned to retreat. And in the Battle of Bilbringi "The two Rebel Assault Frigates broke to either side of the beleaguered Golan II, delivering massive broadsides as they veered off." So if anything, it is the Mk.I that is the brawler of the two, charging headfirst against an ISD II and getting up close and personal with a Golan II.

• Reply
• Quote

12

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Anti-super heavy units on ground

« on: March 13, 2016, 02:27:10 PM »

It is possible to give AT-ATs the reflect/absorb ability that has a radius modifier to increase their frontal defense, while at the same time weakening their overall armor hp value. This makes them more vulnerable to flanking attempts.

Add some Equalizer ion cannons on infantry or light mechs to disable vehicles temporarily and suddenly there are two complementary ways to deal with super heavies.

It is also possible to create dedicated anti-vehicle mines that only explode under heavy vehicles, though these would give an unfair advantage to the player as they are quite difficult script so that the AI could use them intelligently as well.

• Reply
• Quote

13

Star Wars Discussion / Re: what would your flagship be and why?

« on: March 08, 2016, 09:03:22 PM »

SDSD Freudian Nightmare

• Reply
• Quote

14

Imperial Civil War Tech Support / Re: 2.1 Startup CTD

« on: February 22, 2016, 12:29:44 PM »

You could try installing it somewhere else than the Program Files folder.

• Reply
• Quote

15

Imperial Civil War Tech Support / Re: 2.1 Startup CTD

« on: February 21, 2016, 04:37:48 PM »

If you used to have RaW or AotR installed, it is possible that you still have some of their files in Forces of Corruption\Data that weren't removed during your last FoC uninstall.

• Reply
• Quote

16

Imperial Civil War Community Mods / Re: Balance & Flavor submod for Imperial Civil War 2.1

« on: February 21, 2016, 05:20:48 AM »

Hi Vulcanus great submod. I'm having trouble with the 'Hunt for Zsinj' galactic conquest. For some reason the New Republic is not playable. I noticed some typos in the XML for the campaign - Calamari was spelt 'Calimari' and edited those, but that didn't fix it. Can only really do basic XML editing/adding units, not too sure about GCs or how to fix them. Any ideas? Thanks.

You shouldn't edit internal XML planet names, as those are not typos. "Calimari" is what was used in ICW and there was no need for me to change it as the name displayed ingame is from the text file rather than XMLs. Changing that in campaign files only will cause Mon Calamari to disappear from the campaign map.

Hunt for Zsinj can be fixed by editing Campaigns_Zsinj.XML and changing the Greater Maldrood's campaign name from
   <Campaign Name="Sandbox_Zsinj_Rebel"> to anything else, like
   <Campaign Name="Sandbox_Zsinj_Maldrood">

• Reply
• Quote

17

Star Wars Discussion / Re: Eclipse vs Executor

« on: February 19, 2016, 03:49:53 PM »

The interesting battle would be an Assertor (which doesn't have superlaser, but outguns the Executor nearly 4:1) having an Executor jump into the system at an advantagous spot and a battle between those.

Well according to fractalsponge it would be more of a 2:1 advantage, and from what I hear from the latest FFG releases, the Assertor was turned into a pre-Yavin design that doesn't quite match the Executor in firepower.

Personally I treat FFG as mostly canon in both Legends and NEU-verse since they are doing the best job in worldbuilding the Star Wars universe since WEG.

• Reply
• Quote

18

Star Wars Discussion / Re: what your favtorie ships from star wars

« on: February 18, 2016, 07:25:28 PM »

In no particular order:

X-wing
Y-Wing
V-Wing
TIE Int
Vader's TIE
Naga Sadow's fleet
Hapan Nova cruiser
Corellian and Dornean Gunships
Space ARC Star Cruiser
Acclamator
Interdictor SD
ISD
All Sienar/Cygnus Sentinel/Lambda family shuttles and dropships.

• Reply
• Quote

19

Star Wars Discussion / Re: Thrawn

« on: February 05, 2016, 05:30:01 PM »

Put it this way: Just before he was killed, Thrawn was about to lose a decisive fleet battle (and his main shipyards) simultaneously to losing the Mount Tantiss facility, both because he underestimated his opponents. Had Thrawn lived he would still have lost the war. And that being stabbed in the back thing? That was 100 % on him too.

I'll still take Stazi before Thrawn as a commander. That old Duros did more with fewer resources than Thrawn in a much more dangerous Galaxy and unlike Thrawn even managed to survive being stabbed in the back.

• Reply
• Quote

20

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Warlord Faction Development

« on: January 17, 2016, 12:09:03 PM »

In the never-released final version of Balance & Flavor that has playable Eriadu Authority I gave them a very conservative Imperial tech tree consisting of early Imperial ship designs such as the Imperial I, Vindicator, Carrack and Strike Cruisers together with the Venator and Dominator.

With the Western Reaches Operation and the DS1 project (with Tarkin!) Eriadu and its surroundings would likely have been focal points of the Imperial military and thus received both the best of the remaining Clone Wars era fleet and much of the early Imperial military build-up.

And with a fleet established around Imp I's and the new Oversector Outer Grand Moff Kaine turning away from the Greater Seswenna and establishing himself in the New Territories on the opposite side of the Galaxy Eriadu wouldn't likely have received many if any ISD IIs. Additionally the Second Death Star project at Endor would have meant that many of the operating forces in the Southern Outer Rim could very well have been independent task forces not attached to the Oversector Outer/Eriaduan command structure, so there was no need provide one of the most loyalist territories in the Empire with brand new military tech around the time ISD IIs, Lancers etc. were introduced.

Eriadu Authority was also largely cut off from major shipbuilders in the Core very soon after Endor starting with the Nagai-Tof Invasions, Rebel-held fortress worlds at Kinyen, Chardaan, Tynna and Sullust that were soon joined by Naboo and Malastare. and the New Republic's campaign to isolate the Outer Rim warlords. In Tarkin Fondor is also mentioned as the primary shipbuilding/trade partner of Eriadu so with the NR capturing Fondor early on Eriadu really had little chance to acquire the latest Imperial ship tech.

I also gave them V-Wings with shields and 1x4 proton torps as in The Guns of Kelrodo-Ai we get to see Eriadu's Air Marshal Shea Hublin use such V-Wings to great effect and in his position Hublin had more than two decades to mold Eriaduan fighter corps to fit his preferences. So together with TIE/LNs, Bombers and Ints (also shielded) Eriadu Authority would have fighter corps that are worse than any other faction in space superiority with no advanced fighters but would also be close to comparable with early NewRep fighter forces (and superior to any Imperials) in anti-capital firepower.

Just throwing around some ideas.

• Reply
• Quote