Author Topic: Questions/Comments about 2.0 (Read 69733 times)

Revanchist · « **Reply #100 on:** December 07, 2012, 03:14:36 PM »

Quote from: Eclipse on November 28, 2012, 01:16:33 PM

Yeah I've tried to defeat the rebels with fighter but the only one that gave me a good result was the TIE defender but as it consumes pop capacity for the battles I prefer using a few lancer frigates. Rebel fighters are just too strong

I'd think that Preybirds are also pretty useful for fighter spam.

Eclipse · « **Reply #101 on:** December 07, 2012, 04:23:28 PM »

Quote from: revanchist on December 07, 2012, 03:14:36 PM

I'd think that Preybirds are also pretty useful for fighter spam.

Yeah but the rebels have a lot of more powerfull fighter (like the E-wing, Defender fighter, the A-wing it's a total nightmare. It's not that easy to beat the rebels using fighters.

Lavo · « **Reply #102 on:** December 12, 2012, 12:13:09 PM »

Seeing as how, in Infinites, one can make an AI player start with multiple planets, might I suggest making it so that in all GCs that the AI starts with more mines/tax centers/etc than a human player? As personally I find that a human player, in a fairly small amount of time, will always generate better cash flow than the AI, allowing them to out-produce and/or out-fortify them. This is an issue I've experienced in virtually all EaW games/mods, particularly in vanilla EaW, though it isn't as bad in ICW due to limiting such structures to 5 per planet.

Enceladus · « **Reply #103 on:** December 12, 2012, 12:44:37 PM »

Mine and tax centers don't actually stimulate the AI. This is because the amount produced by these structures is basically nothing compared to the massive amount of free credits the AI is given to actually make it do something.

negativ21 · « **Reply #104 on:** December 17, 2012, 05:26:46 PM »

Hey I was wondering why did you guys decide to remove the star galleon. It was pretty cool and strong and I kinda liked it.
Also what drove you to use the new nebula SD model rather than this one which seems older and cooler. The new one is really boxy and looks unrealistic.

negativ21 · « **Reply #105 on:** December 17, 2012, 05:28:23 PM »

Woops. the other model I was talking about:
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tbo=d&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=TEtmDZRWq-4U_M:&imgrefurl=http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Nebula-class_Star_Destroyer&docid=74qUZK8S-kEvvM&imgurl=http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080101002937/starwars/images/6/67/Dsdsotg.jpg&w=448&h=256&ei=WpzPUKCHFZCMyAH2y4DADQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=4&vpy=309&dur=378&hovh=170&hovw=297&tx=146&ty=76&sig=111602188529092126736&page=1&tbnh=135&tbnw=245&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0,i:135

Enceladus · « **Reply #106 on:** December 17, 2012, 05:51:02 PM »

The design for the Nebula Star Destroyer was updated with the release of the Essential Guide to Warfare ( http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120425020543/starwars/images/4/48/NebulaClassSD-EGTW.jpg ). We made a new model to reflect this more canon design and also because the old model was ugly and just poorly done.

In short, we like the newer one more than the older one.

The Star Galleon was removed because it was a bad model and skin in addition to the ship itself serving no real purpose in the mod that wasn't already covered by better alternatives.

Lord Xizer · « **Reply #107 on:** December 19, 2012, 04:47:09 PM »

Agreed.

Eclipse · « **Reply #108 on:** December 19, 2012, 09:06:31 PM »

Something really stupid but these days I haven't been playing much because I had a lot of other things to do and played some skirmish and with the empire the Strike Cruiser is 4200 credits, It's really expensive for what it can do. Make it worth arround 1500 credits and that would be good

tlmiller · « **Reply #109 on:** December 20, 2012, 01:14:44 PM »

I always had a soft spot for the strike cruisers. Don't know why, but they're my favorite ship smaller/weaker than the Venator.

Eclipse · « **Reply #110 on:** December 20, 2012, 07:31:13 PM »

I like them because they end up by overwhelming the enemy forces but I only use the ones I start with after that I don't build any

tlmiller · « **Reply #111 on:** December 20, 2012, 08:38:07 PM »

In SW: Rebellion I used them as the bulk of my fleets. In ICW, I rarely build them due to being, IMO, somewhat overpriced for how fragile they are, but I do love them.

Once in a while I'll build a fleet of them towards the end when I've destroyed all REALISTIC resistance just to get to use them.

Eclipse · « **Reply #112 on:** December 20, 2012, 10:06:32 PM »

I don't consider a good idea I prefer to build dreadnough they are as fragile as them but it has heavy weapons and if they are from the katana fleet are even better. They are still usefull as light defense and let's say "the first line of attack" of my imperial fleets but when they are all gone the ISD will replace'em

taldarus · « **Reply #113 on:** December 24, 2012, 10:43:09 PM »

First post, new to TR for the first time as 2.0 love the game guys. I have to say, this is exactly what I was looking for out of Empire at War in the first place. I really feel like you can play through the books this way.

I actually have a question about the SSD, not the usual question. I dont want the EOTH to have them, and I applaud your not giving them it.

Just had a thought about a thrawn'esque superweapon. Could you create a anti-interdictor ship? It could be big huge and vulnerable, but allow your ships to safely ignore the gravity field problem. I think of basically a navigation beacon, like in the pre-hyperspace computer days. A small part of me would wonder if it could have a garrison, like an offensive space station? Can't move in the skirmish map, but can move between solar systems.

Any way. About the SSD, I have a question about hitboxes. I noticed that the ISD II seems to have a better dps broadside then the Eclipse, and this is because of the octuple turrets have a higher damage per hit, yes? I was just wondering if their is a hit limit that a ship can take per second. The game really wasn't intended to have so many fighters and lasers firing so am I hitting the limit?

I tested against a mc80 with vs the eclipse and then with an ISD II vs mc80. It wasn't an actual test, but just two conccurrent ship duels. I noticed the ISD II shredded the mc80 about 2-3x faster, and I was wondering if this was intentional (to limit the SSD's power), or if it was an unintentional limit found in the script?

IE we want more firepower, but adding more guns (past a certain point) doesn't help. In that case leaving canon (Makes me sad) and dividing by the number 8 and throwing on octuple turrets to simulate the actually fire capacity of the SSD?

Just installed and played through the Shadow GC as IR, just for giggles and to get a feel for the mechanics. Love the mod, and I am really excited at the EotH. Great mod guys. The best mod I have ever played. And I play a ton of mods. I enjoy mods more than the real games often.

Corey · « **Reply #114 on:** December 25, 2012, 12:27:14 PM »

Quote

Just had a thought about a thrawn'esque superweapon. Could you create a anti-interdictor ship? It could be big huge and vulnerable, but allow your ships to safely ignore the gravity field problem. I think of basically a navigation beacon, like in the pre-hyperspace computer days. A small part of me would wonder if it could have a garrison, like an offensive space station? Can't move in the skirmish map, but can move between solar systems.

Something with this kind of ability would be under consideration for their fourth utility-oriented capital, however I'm not sure what kind of scripting would be possible/necessary to make it work in either Sins or EaW.

Quote

Any way. About the SSD, I have a question about hitboxes. I noticed that the ISD II seems to have a better dps broadside then the Eclipse, and this is because of the octuple turrets have a higher damage per hit, yes? I was just wondering if their is a hit limit that a ship can take per second. The game really wasn't intended to have so many fighters and lasers firing so am I hitting the limit?

Even with the Octuples the ISD has a way lower DPS than the Eclipse, Sovereign or Executor (we have the actual numbers for all the ships in a spreadsheet). There isn't a limit to damage that can be done, and we haven't nerfed the Supers in any way. I'm not sure why you would have experienced otherwise, but it may have just been an issue of how it was being distributed at the time.

After the shields are down, however, there is the limitation that if you target a ship via an attack order, the Supers will often fall victim to EaW's terribad pathfinding and start spinning in a way not conducive to bringing their full firepower onto something, and the firepower will all be put onto each hardpoint one at a time, changing targets once every cycle, at which point the DPS difference wouldn't really matter since the full DPS of an ISD and the Eclipse are more than enough to take down a hardpoint in a single salvo, and hardpoint health can't go below 0.

Lord Xizer · « **Reply #115 on:** December 25, 2012, 04:25:56 PM »

Which is why I clear fog of war and drop my SSD right on top of them!

tlmiller · « **Reply #116 on:** December 25, 2012, 05:05:39 PM »

Agreed. Best way to deal with SSD's is to put them where they don't need to move, and then they'll be fine blowing things up while they twirl around like little kids "woooo, this is NEAT!!!"

taldarus · « **Reply #117 on:** December 25, 2012, 10:10:43 PM »

I noticed the pathing problems already. That's a big problem, but not unexpected. It was actually against the shielding, as I had already noticed the hardpoint damage with bombers, all those torpedoes head toward the same hardpoint.

I am actually not bothered by it, per se. I just noticed that an ISD II seemed to shred the MC's shields and that made the fight go way faster. Where as the Eclipse sent a massive barrage that looked amazing, but the shields drained down a lot slower. I remember thinking that an old mc80 should practical vaporize before that bombardment. It just relegates the SSD to the role of sniper imo.

Lord Xizer · « **Reply #118 on:** December 25, 2012, 10:52:54 PM »

Eclipse superlaser makes short work of mon cals

tlmiller · « **Reply #119 on:** December 26, 2012, 12:52:16 PM »

MC80/80b isn't worth wasting a superlaser on IMO.