Author Topic: Suggestions for 2.1 (Read 282024 times)

Revanchist · « **Reply #220 on:** October 26, 2012, 03:39:29 PM »

Maybe the landing craft could lay down suppressive fire against enemies while the units disembark. You could also make aerial units and AA be able to hit transports, giving you the possibility to destroy the transports before the units disembarked.

Eclipse · « **Reply #221 on:** October 26, 2012, 04:47:29 PM »

That remind me Star Wars Force Commander were you could actually destroy the enemy transport and they had to pay for a new one

Revanchist · « **Reply #222 on:** October 27, 2012, 10:45:22 PM »

So I saw the new SSD model, and I was wondering: are you going to put this into ICW now for 2.1?

Also had another idea for the Final Imperial Push. If the Chimaera is killed, you could get a message from Pellaeon like this: I overcalculated the resistance of the Rebellion, and the Chimaera was damaged beyond repair. In order to continue the offensive, I have selected a new ship to command-the Right to Rule. She will require some funds to bring back into fighting shape, but my hope is that the oldest ship in the fleet will be as inspiring to my forces as Thrawns former ship.
You could then be able to buy Pellaeon in the Right to Rule, which would be an ISD I in weaponry, but have an updated fighter compliment, ISD II armor and shielding, and a higher morale boost than the Chimaera.

Corey · « **Reply #223 on:** October 28, 2012, 03:17:41 AM »

Quote from: revanchist on October 27, 2012, 10:45:22 PM

So I saw the new SSD model, and I was wondering: are you going to put this into ICW now for 2.1?

It'll probably make its way in along with a few other things. We're still placing a higher priority on new content from either mod, however, meaning stuff like the V-19 into ICW and the Nebulon-B into Ascendancy would be more important to us than getting the new Nebulon-B or Executor into ICW from Ascendancy.

Quote from: revanchist on October 27, 2012, 10:45:22 PM

Also had another idea for the Final Imperial Push. If the Chimaera is killed, you could get a message from Pellaeon like this: I overcalculated the resistance of the Rebellion, and the Chimaera was damaged beyond repair. In order to continue the offensive, I have selected a new ship to command-the Right to Rule. She will require some funds to bring back into fighting shape, but my hope is that the oldest ship in the fleet will be as inspiring to my forces as Thrawns former ship.
You could then be able to buy Pellaeon in the Right to Rule, which would be an ISD I in weaponry, but have an updated fighter compliment, ISD II armor and shielding, and a higher morale boost than the Chimaera.

If we did that there'd be no reason not to just kill Pellaeon in a suicide run, and the Right to Rule was from several years after the mod, even if you use the extended timeline we have just for technology (which we allow right up to the start of the Vong War for).

Senza · « **Reply #224 on:** October 29, 2012, 12:30:24 AM »

Could we maybe get smaller minimap icons for the fighters? They make it look like there's a lot more there than there actually is. My friend who I just got to try the mod pointed this out, and I realized I'd kind of thought that too, just never really realized it.

Corey · « **Reply #225 on:** October 29, 2012, 12:40:12 AM »

Those pips for small ships including fighters are already basically 1 pixels so short of removing them you can't really make it smaller. I'd rather have it just show one for the squadron but it doesn't work that way.

Senza · « **Reply #226 on:** October 29, 2012, 01:11:23 PM »

Fair enough. Also, could we get the amount of credits AI get in skirmish toned down? It's basically impossible to beat anything but an easy AI on your own, they come out with like 5 capital ships like 10-15 minutes in the game. I've found the only way I can win is by playing 3 player and letting them beat the crap out of each other while I build a fleet to destroy them.

Eclipse · « **Reply #227 on:** October 29, 2012, 05:32:40 PM »

I honestly haven't treid much skirmish but I beat the the IA in normal and it was very bored because it didn't acutally build any capital ship XD so a Phalanx got the job done pretty fast (War machine map).

Also is there a posibility to change the music that is played when you attack/are attacked?

Singularity · « **Reply #228 on:** October 30, 2012, 04:56:52 PM »

This is pretty small, but could you fix the names for SSD's? Every Executor I or the computer tries to build is always called the Annihilatior, and Sovereigns don't seem to use their own names either.

Slornie · « **Reply #229 on:** October 30, 2012, 05:04:05 PM »

Quote from: Singularity on October 30, 2012, 04:56:52 PM

This is pretty small, but could you fix the names for SSD's? Every Executor I or the computer tries to build is always called the Annihilatior

This isn't something we can do anything about. The game just goes through the list of names in order, starting again each battle. Annihilator is the first name in the Executor file, if you happen to have a second it will be called Guardian.

Eclipse · « **Reply #230 on:** October 31, 2012, 07:13:19 PM »

How about adding the the IR and/or the PA the shadow trooper like a commando sotrmtrooper but with the stealth skill and the sabotage skill from the republic infiltrators?

Corey · « **Reply #231 on:** October 31, 2012, 07:21:02 PM »

I already addressed that last time it was posted in this thread.

Singularity · « **Reply #232 on:** October 31, 2012, 07:47:36 PM »

Quote from: Slornie on October 30, 2012, 05:04:05 PM

This isn't something we can do anything about. The game just goes through the list of names in order, starting again each battle. Annihilator is the first name in the Executor file, if you happen to have a second it will be called Guardian.

No, I fought 3 Executors in one battle and they were all called Annihilator.

Corey · « **Reply #233 on:** October 31, 2012, 08:07:52 PM »

The naming mechanism EaW uses is fucking stupid and can't be changed. All we can do is put the names in the file, there's nothing we can do to make it actually function in a rational way.

Eclipse · « **Reply #234 on:** October 31, 2012, 09:30:23 PM »

I have an idea it's quite stupid but it might work it's about the names of the SSD if in each era you can just build 3 of them why no making 3 different SSD of wich you can only make 1 with a lifetime of 1 and each one would have it's proper name.

Corey · « **Reply #235 on:** October 31, 2012, 09:36:19 PM »

That would overcomplicate the story scripting.

Eclipse · « **Reply #236 on:** November 01, 2012, 05:01:44 PM »

you think so? I mean I belive it's gonna be a full copy and paste and change some names but well you are the one who knows how to do it and if you say it would overcomplicate then it's ok

Enceladus · « **Reply #237 on:** November 01, 2012, 07:29:57 PM »

Yeah except for the part where it wouldn't be just a simple copy and paste. It's a large amount of work for very minimal gains. At least you can look forward to Ascendancy where you can name your ships whatever you want.

Eclipse · « **Reply #238 on:** November 01, 2012, 08:21:15 PM »

I am looking forward to it but now it's not the best time to buy a new strategy game I need to pass the exams

Corey · « **Reply #239 on:** November 01, 2012, 08:46:16 PM »

Quote from: Eclipse on November 01, 2012, 05:01:44 PM

you think so? I mean I belive it's gonna be a full copy and paste and change some names but well you are the one who knows how to do it and if you say it would overcomplicate then it's ok

I said story scripting, not that the coding of the ships themselves would be difficult. Making the ships themselves would be a simple copy/paste, yes. However, in order to make them change between the set of two or three, you also have to set each one to either lock or unlock with the building of the previous one or else you end up with all 3 on the build bar. That would mean the addition of that cycling script to every one of the Imperial story scripts in the mod. That alone wouldn't be a big deal, except the way the era progression works, there'd have to be additional scripts to make sure it doesn't interfere with the era progression and give the faction Executors when they shouldn't have them, or to make sure the wrong ones don't get locked at the wrong time. That's a lot of work and testing to do to address a situation that only noticed when:

1) There's more than one Executor in a battle at the same time
2) The player bothers to look at the ship names (most don't)

And just as importantly, this doesn't actually prevent the SSDs from sharing names, it just means it'll cycle through 3 instead of just one. You'd still have a chance to end up with the same name in the same battle at the same time. That is a huge amount of bullshit to go through to just add 2 names to a roster for a single ship. You'll notice the exact same situation happens with literally every other named ship. I honestly would just remove the whole naming system entirely because of how horribly Petroglyph implemented it, but then people would complain, so we're stuck with their broken system, and I have absolutely no desire to make dozens of cycling variants for each ship which would interfere with the actual function of the game (interfere with era progression, may lock out certain times when they should be able to build ships, may allow them to build the ships when they can't, and would ruin group selection functions) just to get more names.