Show Posts

1

News & Updates / Re: Secutor Ingame

« on: June 12, 2016, 01:59:36 PM »

Thank you Corey, its good to be back

I haven't actually been playing any games for quite a while but that couldn't last forever, could it?

I the time of my absence was used well. I can't wait for your next release with all the additions outlined in the annoucements posts I smell that RaW will be dethroned as best mod for EaW

As for the time period, my mistake, should have made a proper research before asking.

2

News & Updates / Re: Dev Diary: Expand the Hand

« on: June 12, 2016, 05:05:41 AM »

Great news, I hope some of new ships will bear the same sleek, aristocratic and genuinely Chiss visual as Chaf.

3

News & Updates / Re: Secutor Ingame

« on: June 12, 2016, 05:02:51 AM »

Lookg amazing. May I ask will Alliance (aka Imperious-class Star Destroyer) or Pellaeon-clas Star also appear? I think Warb_null open sources some models and thought it might involve some stretch to coevered time period it would be nice to see them in-game.

4

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Space weapons mechanics

« on: January 05, 2014, 03:20:25 PM »

Thanks a lot for explanation, one point that makes me perplex.

Quote from: Slornie on January 04, 2014, 05:03:37 PM

Almost all of the ships in Thrawn's Revenge use Armor_Frigate (fighters use Armor_Fighter and shipyards use Armor_Station). This means a turbolaser hitting the hull of a Star Destroyer does the same damage as a turbolaser hitting a Nebulon-B Frigate. The differences between individual ship classes are then handled in the raw stats for the unit (including specific characteristics e.g. Mon Calamari ships have better shields, Strike Cruiser is known to be particularly weak-hulled).

Hmm

So how exactly is the damage modifier mechanism working if most of the units has the same armor type? Because - I was trying to understand page 11 in manual and I locate Damage vs Armor Matrix in GameConstatns.xml but that matrix is based on damage and armor types?

And one last question about rate of fire and recharge times - are there some limits for those values? Because I was thinking about weapon with very small damage but very high rate of fire with no recharching, basically the opposite of Hapan laser. Is it technically possible to minimize the recharge time value and maxime the amount of pulses?

Sorry for beeing so bothersome and thanks again for your help.

P.S.: As for the modding basic:
http://www.petroglyphgames.com/forums/index.php?/topic/13193-beginners-tutorial-for-foc-mod/
http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/925180-star-wars-empire-at-war/faqs/45886
http://eaw.heavengames.com/holocron/index.php?action=view&id=15

Reply
Quote

5

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Space weapons mechanics

« on: January 04, 2014, 01:43:08 PM »

Quote from: Slornie on January 04, 2014, 08:06:46 AM

As the person who wrote the manual I may not be the best person to answer this, but I'll give it a try.

I think rather than you having poor explanation skills it's me lacking deeper background knowledge

For me your post definitely cast quite a lot of light on the problematic. Previously I thought that you only define one type of hardpoint (i.e.: turbolaser, heavy turbolaser) and then reuse it again and again on various ship without altering it. Now I dug a a bit in the xml files and I see every single hadpoint has its own definition!

My steps were folloing:

I located Star Destroyer segment named <SpaceUnit Name="Generic_Star_Destroyer"> in Remnant_Space_Units.xml file which among other contains list of all 20 hardpoints (16 weapon placements + engine, shield gen., hangar and tractor beam).
Then I headed to HardPoints_IR.xml file and searched for individual hardpoint names. Their segments contains recharge times, pulse delays and pulse counts values. One more important tag was Projectile Type.
Last but not the least I opened Turbolasers.xml file and located Projectile types refered in hardpoint file. Here I find damage values.

Anything I missed?

One curious thing I found in SpaceUnit Name="Generic_Star_Destroyer" was <Armor_Type> Armor_Frigate </Armor_Type>. Is that corect? Isn't it supposed to be Capital? I alsonoticed every single ISD hardpoint has the same health (tag: <Health>250.0</Health>) is that intentional? Or is it required by engine for example? Which leads me to a question about general health of ship? Is it consisted of shield plus a sum of hardpoints health?

With that regard, any explanation of XML basics floating anywhere around EaW modding community? I run across lot of tag I can imagine what they mean but I am damn not sure

For example:
<Scale_Factor>
<Mass>
<Armor_Type>
<Shield_Armor_Type>
<Max_Speed>
<Max_Rate_Of_Turn>
<Max_Thrust>
<Hyperspace_Speed>
<Maintenance_Cost>
<Damage> (in Remnant_Space_Units.xml)
<Autoresolve_Health>
<Shield_Points>
<Tactical_Health>
<Shield_Refresh_Rate>
<Energy_Capacity>
<Energy_Refresh_Rate>
<Targeting_Max_Attack_Distance>
<Fire_Range_Distance>
<Fire_Inaccuracy_Distance>
<Projectile_Max_Flight_Distance>
<Projectile_Does_Energy_Damage>
<Projectile_Energy_Per_Shot>

Thanks in advance for any help.

Reply
Quote

6

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Space weapons mechanics

« on: January 04, 2014, 07:25:06 AM »

Hi,

I was studying new manual and started thinking about tinkering a bit with some space hero characteristics. In order to do that I delved into space weapon mechanics chapter however I am not sure I understand your balance principle. The example with ISD states 60/6 Turbolasers means 6 hardpoint firing 10 pulses each round. Tables below state Turbolasers have rate of ire 0.2s and recharge tiume of 4s.

I got a little confused with all those time values... Is there a tell it to me like i'm a five year old way?

Also out of curiosity, Visvia station uses Tri-Maser Cannons, what type of weapon is that based on?

Thanks a lot in advnace.

Reply
Quote

7

News & Updates / Re: Imperial Civil War 2.1 Released!

« on: January 03, 2014, 12:35:29 PM »

A little late I know but anyway I want to congratulate the whole dev. team for this great release! Excellent job!

You have my humble respect.

8

Empire at War and Forces of Corruption / Re: FoC Mini-image

« on: June 24, 2012, 10:15:37 AM »

It is a very small disc image you can mount that allows you to play without inserting a real disc in mechanic. I know the other way is crack but I consider mini-images rather legitimate way if you have an original and you don't want to look for the disc everytime you want to play.

Reply
Quote

9

Empire at War and Forces of Corruption / FoC Mini-image

« on: June 22, 2012, 03:38:30 PM »

Hi,

I hope it is not a violation of forum rules but...

...I would like to ask about experience with FoC mini-image if someone has any? I heard it is needed to use some blocking software? Any notes & comments?

Thanks in advance.

Reply
Quote

10

News & Updates / Re: 2.0 Video Preview: Raid Battles

« on: June 10, 2012, 10:59:33 AM »

If I am not wrong this is the first time this kind of feature is being used in EaW, right?

You have my respect, this could make space battles so much exciting! Are planning for example so dirty tricks like spamming some random pirat scum just before the end of the battle when both sides are depleted?

11

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Jedi in Space Combat

« on: February 06, 2011, 09:25:06 AM »

Might be dumb, but I think Kyp's Dozen could be usable?

Reply
Quote

12

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: question_Tector_SSD

« on: December 21, 2010, 03:28:08 PM »

Quote from: Corey on December 19, 2010, 03:03:06 PM

I hope you don;t take any of this as an attack on you, it's just a discussion of the ideas. We can sit around all day saying something is good until we're blue in the face, but if it isn't, it isn't. Wait until you play with the adjustments that have been made since 1.0. There are still some issues with it I'd like to work out, but as of now I think it works fairly well for its role.

Not to worry, there was no irony in my last reply. I am not getting offended

I will be looking forward for new version. Hope I will have some more free time to play, university is a time-chewer $:-\$

Quote from: Corey on December 19, 2010, 03:03:06 PM

One of the problems with the mod is lack of useful information in descriptions though, which JLC is working on, so in future versions that kind of information will be available up front. It won't be in 1.1 , but should be in the next release after that.

Yep, some nice descriptions will be appreciated.

Reply
Quote

13

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: question_Tector_SSD

« on: December 19, 2010, 02:29:48 PM »

Quote from: Corey on December 17, 2010, 11:52:36 AM

Right now it can probably bring a sixth of its weapons on to any one target at most, but if you make the ship smaller with fewer hardpoints, that would probably go up to about half.

Uhh, this is a thing that has not come into my mind. You are so right I am turning red from shame... Obviously this way Executor will end up as ISD III or something like. I would also like to appreciate the way you treat with my questions and suggestions. Discussion was really fruitful for me. Accept apologies for my dumbness regarding my ideas.

Also I have one more question. I was wondering if there is some way how to find if hero has some passive leadership bonus for units and numbers for these bonuses?

Thanks again for taking time to explaining things so thoroughly

Reply
Quote

14

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: question_Tector_SSD

« on: December 17, 2010, 11:05:33 AM »

Quote from: Slornie on December 17, 2010, 07:49:11 AM

You're missing the point. As Corey said, fighter/bomber spam isn't as effective in TR as it is in vanilla EAW/FoC. This is deliberate, as outlined in Future Plans and Criticisms Addressed

I have read this, however hitting as much hardpoints as possible with bomber before shields are down still seems worthy to me.

Quote from: Slornie on December 17, 2010, 07:49:11 AM

On the other hand the Executor's greatest weakness is probably its shape, most of the guns are along the side of the wedge. If you can get your ships behind it, they can pound away at the rearmost hardpoints while staying out of the bulk of turbolaser fire on each side. If it starts to turn, you can focus on the rearmost hardpoints on the side closest to your ships. Rather than using your capital ships to draw fire away from your fighters, use corvettes and frigates to draw fire away from your capital ships.

^^ THIS is it! I used frigates and corvettes but they literally get fried. Not to be surprised they were mostly on sides

Funny thing is, that it is the most bothering thing for me when I am using Executor - position of its weapons. I will adjust my battle plan for NR now

One more word to your screenshots: respect =)

Quote from: Slornie on December 17, 2010, 07:49:11 AM

The Executor has been altered in v1.1, so the above example is probably no longer relevant.

In the light of knowledge I have recently gained from replies here I think I should rephrase. Executor seems very well balanced now.
My suggestion has now moved to rather elementary level. I think you have done damn good job finding some sort of mark between realism and gameplay for most of the ships. Except Executor. As I wrote in last post I would prefer to sacrifice more of realism to behalf to more "playability" of Executor. Accepting rather a crripled version possessing lesser power and costing fewer credits for possibility to see Executors more often in GC and in skirmishes maybe one day. I understand that this cannot work for all SSDs because Eclipse and Sovereign having Superlaser.
Thus for me little voice in depths in your fan base ;-)

Anyhow I am going to torture Isard once again, cross your fingers for me

Thanks for valuable intel!

Reply
Quote

15

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: question_Tector_SSD

« on: December 17, 2010, 06:20:44 AM »

Quote from: Zeron on December 16, 2010, 04:06:06 PM

That's...kind of the point. SSDs are each supposed to be a fleet of one...

Well I mentioned I will try to keep SSDs firepower the same. But well lets go a bit deeper, read further please...

Quote from: Corey on December 16, 2010, 04:12:43 PM

The number of hardpoints accurately reflect what it should have relative to the other ships, and they're the right type. Fighter spam is a bad idea in general. Usually the Executor is seen as too weak, from what we've read. Try changing your tactics a bit.

About the battle tactics, I tried crushing Isard with NR on level 1, which showed to be quite a challenge. I haven't invented a better technique then aiming hardpoints with Y-wing (or other bombers generally), letting X - wing fighters protecting those bombers and capital ships taking most of the damage while providing some support fire. Maybe some more experienced player will share a hint of a better battle plan =)
Regarding hardpoints it is more or less a question of "cannon"? For me it is indeed an exciting moment to have a "fully sized and fully equipped" Executor but I still cannot get rid of the idea that the whole SSDs concept is not being capitalized fully. Maneuvering and generally controlling SSD is not so enjoying as I would expect. Therefore I would rather sacrifice a little bit of "realism" for the sake of gameplay. Starting with reducing the size of ship to changing hardpoints types and numbers as mentioned above. Maybe even cutting its firepower with that cost reduction should be applied. Idea is to make SSDs more "playbable". However that is only my humble opinion. May some other members will add their thoughts.

Reply
Quote

16

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: question_Tector_SSD

« on: December 16, 2010, 03:44:53 PM »

Ah,

I was not able to found much more info about Tectors except this.

Nevertheless, about SSDs. I was having hard time to take this ugly beasts down. Speaking about one executor, using mass of Y-wing, some X-wings to bring some more mess into fight and couple capital ships to drag some fire. Either I was doing it wrong or I am loosing my shape

but the losses on my side were, ehm massive. So moving to my thoughts.
I think SSDs are having too much hardpoints now. I am only and solely speaking about numbers. I am not sure about certain number (I am not that good in math

) but I think it is more then 100? Mainly heavy turbolasers, right?

So I humbly would suggest decreasing amount of hardpoints simply by swapping some of heavy turbolasers to dual or quad ones. This way SSDs won't loose any of its firepower but they will be vulnerable to certain type of attacks (bombing runs)

Btw: these posts (IT, NR) are outdated badly? Bacause I think i can for example train Norghi strike teams with Ysard for example.

Reply
Quote

17

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / question_Tector_SSD

« on: December 16, 2010, 01:10:53 PM »

Hi,

I am probably having a dumb question but I can't find Tector Star Destoryer. I started Art of war campaign I am having Ysanne Isard as leader, holding couple shipyards worlds (Kuat etc) but I still cannot build Tector. What am I doing wrong?

Also I have noticed a long discussion about SSD balance and result in one of news regarding upcoming changes in 1.1. As a player and fan of the mod I cannot say I am comfortable about SSD balance. However before I am going to say anything else I would like to ask. Are SSDs generally subject to change or they are a "rock solid thingy" now?