Balance & Flavor submod for Imperial Civil War 2.1

[Lord Xizer]

Just finished second playthrough in post Zsinj as Maldrood on Admiral. Blitzed early, mauled Rogriss and a few advance PA units when Acbar and NR hit my flank, drove into my interior taking 1/3 of my planets before i halted them, then IR hit my other side with ssimilar results. lol pooled all remaing forces at my capitalthen fled to Deep Core lol(played gc again, very ssatisfying the way this one is built love it)

[tlmiller]

In every GC that the IR and PA is in, I regularly get attacked by multi-Executor fleets.  In my game that I started here, so far I've been attacked by a multi-Executor fleet AT LEAST 8 times.  But generally I win once the first goes down (since the other ships are already gone), so any more just retreat.  Not once has more than 1 appeared at the same time.

[Vulcanus]

In every GC that the IR and PA is in, I regularly get attacked by multi-Executor fleets.  In my game that I started here, so far I've been attacked by a multi-Executor fleet AT LEAST 8 times.  But generally I win once the first goes down (since the other ships are already gone), so any more just retreat.  Not once has more than 1 appeared at the same time.

I see. This would be both WAD and an issue at the same time then. The SSDs are supposed to be less dominating on a strategic scale while offering superior performance by themselves thanks to vastly larger number of active fighter squadrons (24 compared to 9). The issue here would be with AI building their Execs to the max, but not utilising them separately or reinforcing with them in multi-SSD fleets if I understand you correctly. Maybe I'll play with some AI recruitment values combined with different build costs and pop costs. An ideal situation would be where the AI builds SSDs but doesn't bankrupt themselves with them (as may be happening now) by generally building a bit fewer of them. And I personally hate SSDs with nothing but 8-9 active squadrons, so that's not making a return.

Population cost decrease to 18 with 18 active squadrons and a small build cost increase to somewhere between 40-50 000 credits could be on the tabs, particularly if AI building them can be balanced.

Where the 24 pop cost is IMO working perfectly is Sovereigns as they have reached that sweet spot where it's a bit risky attack with one as they can be overpowered, but they are still well worth the credits.

[Lord Xizer]

Any way the ships for Zsinj can be tweaked so there are more TIE Raptors?

[tlmiller]

I see. This would be both WAD and an issue at the same time then. The SSDs are supposed to be less dominating on a strategic scale while offering superior performance by themselves thanks to vastly larger number of active fighter squadrons (24 compared to 9). The issue here would be with AI building their Execs to the max, but not utilising them separately or reinforcing with them in multi-SSD fleets if I understand you correctly. Maybe I'll play with some AI recruitment values combined with different build costs and pop costs. An ideal situation would be where the AI builds SSDs but doesn't bankrupt themselves with them (as may be happening now) by generally building a bit fewer of them. And I personally hate SSDs with nothing but 8-9 active squadrons, so that's not making a return.

Population cost decrease to 18 with 18 active squadrons and a small build cost increase to somewhere between 40-50 000 credits could be on the tabs, particularly if AI building them can be balanced.

Where the 24 pop cost is IMO working perfectly is Sovereigns as they have reached that sweet spot where it's a bit risky attack with one as they can be overpowered, but they are still well worth the credits.

Well, they did reinforce them.  Several of the fleets that attacked me were 2x Executors, 4 or 5 ISD/ISD-II's, 4 or 5 VSD/VSD-II's, Carracks, Strikes and who knows how many Lancers.  It's just that the smaller ships die significantly faster, so by the time the Executor is ready to die, they've brought in wave after wave of their smaller ships to die (my defense fleet had 1x Praetor, 2x ISD-II, 2x Venator, 2x Nebulon-B, 1x Acclamator + heavy frigate shipyard reinforcements and it's Golans (Corulag, I think 2x Golan III's, maybe II's) + 2 Hyper-V's on the planet)

[Vulcanus]

Well, they did reinforce them.  Several of the fleets that attacked me were 2x Executors, 4 or 5 ISD/ISD-II's, 4 or 5 VSD/VSD-II's, Carracks, Strikes and who knows how many Lancers.  It's just that the smaller ships die significantly faster, so by the time the Executor is ready to die, they've brought in wave after wave of their smaller ships to die (my defense fleet had 1x Praetor, 2x ISD-II, 2x Venator, 2x Nebulon-B, 1x Acclamator + heavy frigate shipyard reinforcements and it's Golans (Corulag, I think 2x Golan III's, maybe II's) + 2 Hyper-V's on the planet)

Well sounds like Lancer is the one ship that needs a reduced AI value  . The lancer received some major upgrades to its weapons in exhange for reducing its mobility significantly, since lack of mobility was supposedly its greatest weakness and it used to be one of the fastest anti-fighter ships around. Clearly the AI only factors in firepower.

Lord Xizer: If you want to do it yourself, Zsinj.XML (for Warlords) and Zsinj_Campaign_Units.XML (for IR Zsinj, NR Rogriss and Hapans) is what you're looking for.

Search for SpaceUnit Name to find ships.

Replace the fighter complement in
Starting_Spawned_Units and Reserve_Spawned_Units:

<Starting_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>TIE_Interceptor_Squadron, 1</Starting_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>
to
<Starting_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>TIE_Raptor_Squadron, 1</Starting_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>

[tlmiller]

No, I say who knows how many Lancers because I know I saw them, but they're so small that they can easily sneak around the map and think you're seeing multiple when it was 1, or get blown up before you even see them.

I do like that you made them slower, since I do remember that they were portrayed as sluggish for their small size but exceedingly powerful and thus expensive anti-fighter ships.

I also liked that you had the Emancipator and ...whatever for the NR, are they starting units or are they buildable units?

[Vulcanus]

No, I say who knows how many Lancers because I know I saw them, but they're so small that they can easily sneak around the map and think you're seeing multiple when it was 1, or get blown up before you even see them.

I do like that you made them slower, since I do remember that they were portrayed as sluggish for their small size but exceedingly powerful and thus expensive anti-fighter ships.

I also liked that you had the Emancipator and ...whatever for the NR, are they starting units or are they buildable units?

Emancipator/Liberator can be built from Mon Calamari, under name Modified Star Destroyer. They are also starting units for two of the new GCs. I believe both were destroyed during Shadow Hand (got eaten by a World Devastator), so not buildable after Era 3. NR can also build a limited number of ISD Is and Vic IIs from Kuat to reflect the large number of captured Imperial SDs that were very prominent in early NR fleets. When playing as the NR, its generally useful to pay attention to their fighter complement, as there is some shifting around depending on the era. Ships regarded as frontline ships tend to have more valuable fighter complement. Era 1 MC80s have B-Wings for bombers, but by era 2 they get replaced with Y-Wings, while the Assault Frigate that saw heavy action during the Thrawn Campaign gets upgraded from Y-Wings to B-Wings.

[Lord Xizer]

Well sounds like Lancer is the one ship that needs a reduced AI value  . The lancer received some major upgrades to its weapons in exhange for reducing its mobility significantly, since lack of mobility was supposedly its greatest weakness and it used to be one of the fastest anti-fighter ships around. Clearly the AI only factors in firepower.

Lord Xizer: If you want to do it yourself, Zsinj.XML (for Warlords) and Zsinj_Campaign_Units.XML (for IR Zsinj, NR Rogriss and Hapans) is what you're looking for.

Search for SpaceUnit Name to find ships.

Replace the fighter complement in
Starting_Spawned_Units and Reserve_Spawned_Units:

<Starting_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>TIE_Interceptor_Squadron, 1</Starting_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>
to
<Starting_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>TIE_Raptor_Squadron, 1</Starting_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>

Thanks!

[tlmiller]

Some further feedback.  Very cool that you have the PA able to build an additional Vengeance class dreadnought.  However, why are the Executors & Sovereigns 24 population while the Vengeance is only 15 still?

I really like how with the increased fighters, the NR is again swarmy like the NR was.  I attacked some planet (can't remember where now) with the ISD-II hero that you added, a Vengeance, 2 Venators, 2 Nebulon-B's, 2 ISD-II's, and an Immobilizer-418, and while I destroyed their ships quite easily, the Quasars had spit out so many of their fighters that the hero dude had lost hardpoints, the Vengeance lost hardpoints, and 1/2 of the generic ISD-II's had the shields all but destroyed.  From an era-1 NR fleet.  Very impressive.

[Vulcanus]

Some further feedback.  Very cool that you have the PA able to build an additional Vengeance class dreadnought.  However, why are the Executors & Sovereigns 24 population while the Vengeance is only 15 still?

I really like how with the increased fighters, the NR is again swarmy like the NR was.  I attacked some planet (can't remember where now) with the ISD-II hero that you added, a Vengeance, 2 Venators, 2 Nebulon-B's, 2 ISD-II's, and an Immobilizer-418, and while I destroyed their ships quite easily, the Quasars had spit out so many of their fighters that the hero dude had lost hardpoints, the Vengeance lost hardpoints, and 1/2 of the generic ISD-II's had the shields all but destroyed.  From an era-1 NR fleet.  Very impressive.

I'm glad to hear that you're liking it so far. Vengeance's pop cost is an oversight (as is NR Lusankya). I tend to expand Rimward with my PA campaigns, so I probably just forgot the existence of buildable Vengeances when editing SSDs.

Fighter combat is arguably the one thing that is the most different from ICW 2.15. With weaker corvettes, slower squadron spawn rates, more powerful interceptors and fewer bombers, it pays to do some micromanaging in tight battles. Also, many fighters are radically different in performance so for the Alignment the harmless Howlrunners are now actually quite capable craft, though not quite up to par with X-Wings or A-Wings.  And those Skiprays can really tear things up with the addition of conc missiles and triple ion cannons.

[tlmiller]

It does seem the AI will go into "last ditch panic attack".  I'm well in control of the game, controlling over 1/2 the galaxy myself, and suddenly got attacked 6 times in 2 weeks at 3 different planets (4 attacks IR, 2 attacks NR).  One attack actually had limited success, too.  Destroyed an acclamator, 2 ISD-II's (1 of which was that hero), Praetor-II (which unfortunately Ronquarin or whatever his name was on), 3 Strike cruisers, 2 Nebulon-B's and a Venator.

[tlmiller]

I just realized something.  You cannot build the Kuat Drive Yards Praetor mark II battlecruiser at Kuat...

[Vulcanus]

I just realized something.  You cannot build the Kuat Drive Yards Praetor mark II battlecruiser at Kuat...

Sometimes you can't have nice things  .

You still like those Tectors and Vengeances don't you?
It wouldn't be wrong to have Praetor IIs from Kuat because of the corporate connection, just that with two very powerful capital ships unique to Kuat already being there, it's not 100% necessary.

The Pentastar build requirements for capital ships and their new heroes in the Core and Inner Rim planets represent their transformation from a warlord splinter faction into mainstream Empire and thus the ships they can build there (ISD IIs, Vic IIs, Strike Cruisers, Carracks) represent them adopting a more conventional Imperial naval doctrine, and the Praetor II was disliked by naval traditionalists (who prefered ISDs) and SSD proponents alike in Imperial military circles.

Praetor II had been officially out of production for years anyway, while Kuat still kept pumping out ISDs in thousands.

[Lord Xizer]

That's a fair point.

[KissMyWookiee]

Just finished a six-hour playthrough of the Post Zsinj campaign as Maldrood and one of the Infinities Fel Empire as EoTH.

Can I just say that seeing those Warlord gunships launching proton torpedoes while in formation with my ISD 2s has to be one of the coolest EAW moments since I realized I could relive Orinda in ICW vanilla.

On the other hand, I keep forgetting how fragile the MC80 is. I actually gathered all the wingless MC80s you get in the beginning and sent them on the autoresolve missions (suicidal odds/battles not worth playing).

[KissMyWookiee]

Also was it just the Interceptor frigates or did the Hutt Providence ships also have proton torps w/o hardpoints?

[Vulcanus]

Also was it just the Interceptor frigates or did the Hutt Providence ships also have proton torps w/o hardpoints?

Yeah, all Providence torp hardpoints are undestroyable, just me being lazy and not bothering to finish those hardpoints. The thing is, Providences, particularly the three Invisible Hand variants that the model is based on, have  an enormous number proton torpedoes. 102 16-torp launchers. That's 1632 total torpedoes. With the 180 second standardization, that makes over 9 torpedoes/second, which is roughly equivalent of the entire firepower of an ISD II without the other weapon systems of the Providence counted. IIRC I reduced the number of torps quite a bit since those Providences don't necessarily represent the two remaining Invisible Hand variants, but that's still a ridiculous number torpedoes and potential hardpoints to have.

Gotta love the design philosophy behind the Invisible Hand. Need more hangar room? Just remove some reactors to create space. Dont have enough power for turbolasers/engines as the result? Install as many torpedo launch tubes as possible to replace most of the turbolasers.

[tlmiller]

Sometimes you can't have nice things  .

You still like those Tectors and Vengeances don't you?

Not really.  I like the Vengeance significantly more than the Executor because it's a far better looking vessel, but my favorite dreadnought in the game is still the Sovereign.  I never quite understood why they'd build the Tector.  Unless it's a command ship that will never be without a large escort, it has so many vulnerabilities to small ships that it's realistically a nightmare to even contemplate.  Now, you have a Tector be the anchor to a fleet of Lancers and Venators, and you'd have a great niche for it.  But with the Venator being all but retired not long after the clone wars, the Tector, IMO, had no real purpose.

[Vulcanus]

Not really.  I like the Vengeance significantly more than the Executor because it's a far better looking vessel, but my favorite dreadnought in the game is still the Sovereign.  I never quite understood why they'd build the Tector.  Unless it's a command ship that will never be without a large escort, it has so many vulnerabilities to small ships that it's realistically a nightmare to even contemplate.  Now, you have a Tector be the anchor to a fleet of Lancers and Venators, and you'd have a great niche for it.  But with the Venator being all but retired not long after the clone wars, the Tector, IMO, had no real purpose.

I'm not a huge fan of either Praetor II or Tector to be honest, but I was requested to give the Alignment Tectors (or was it for EotH? lol) so that's one of the reasons they are there.

If you don't mind playing as the NR, I would suggest the NR Orinda Campaign GC. Last time I checked, the AI Remnant loves building Lancer-Tector-Venator fleets in Era 4, which are an absolute nightmare for NR to deal with.