brownassociate Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Imperial space stations are only 600 credits, with level two being 1200. Now, to destroy a lv1 station (by itself), you would need 3 or 4 Ywing squadrons an da couple xwings to fight off the ties. So basically you are investing more than double the amount of credits to destroy the station. If it's a level 2, then it also gets a tartan to help defend, making it REALLY hard to do a hit and run with fighter. I really wish they would make hit and runs for the rebellion more viable in the future. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kij0t Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Wait for patches to fix imbalances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhOsT-Jedi Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Well, You're not suppose to build fleets of just fighters... You're suppose to act realistic... Try building bigger ships... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Well, You're not suppose to build fleets of just fighters... You're suppose to act realistic... Try building bigger ships... I could be mistaking, but I believe that the Rebels are famous in many EU books/stuff for their starfighter-only strikes on Imperial positions. Just think about Rogue Squardron. I think that Alliance fighter runs won't be viable until (if) a damage system is implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Sith Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Yeah that would be great, being able to raid repeatably killing one hardpoint at a time without losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popcorn2008 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Wait for patches to fix imbalances. Imbalance? This is no imbalance... Fact of life: The defender can 99.9% of the time defend his/her country with almost half as much money then the person attacking has to spend. Same principle applies here. You really need to build bigger ships to attack a space station. Fighters alone or worthless. I would suggest broadsides/maruaders and mon cals or ISDs. Of course if your tech level is low use Acclaimators/Neb Frigates. Or Victory Star Destroyers. Never just use fighter squads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownassociate Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 I am not saying fighters are worthless, I am not saying things are unbalanced, all I am saying is that perhaps the Imperial space station cost should start at 1200, and go up from there. That way, it would be a viable strategy to send in a handful of squadrons to take it out. Rebels should have to specialize in hit and runs until they get the bigger ships, that's all I am saying. I would gladly spend 1200-1500 credits worth of fighters to try and take out a space station lv1 that costs 1200, well worth the risk and has a decent chance of succeeding. The way it works now, even if you do suceed, the Imperial player can just spend 600 credits to rebuild it, and chances are he just destroyed more than 600 credits worth of fighters. Does all this make sense? I tend to ramble, haha EDIT: Oh yah, the main point I was trying to get at is that the game should be so it makes more sense for the REBELS to launch hit and runs. whew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athanasios Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Realism mods target to fix balance issues/lacks of the game and make it more realistic. Your problem is actually a simple one balance/realism issue; when a bunch of fighters/bombers cost more than a whole space structure (station that is with defence systems etc etc) is this realistic? Simple no, and a fast solution would be to tweak either station's cost or health. But it's not that easy since you have to take in mind you don't reach the other side of imbalance. Anyway, just stay tuned to those balance mods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Pitt Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 just mod in the cost of a space station your self Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotalBiscuit Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Find myself agreeing with Popcorn here. The entire game demonstrates a clear bias towards defender. Ground attacks are a prime example of where an entire attack force can be crushed by a completely ungarrisoned planet by just using the produced units from it's factories. By the original poster's logic, how can you justify being able to kill an AT-AT with units that cost but a fraction of an AT-AT's cost? Simple, cost does not play a major role when it comes to this particular brand of balance. It is balanced by being imbalanced. It reflects the clear advantages that defender's have. An immobile defense space station has a natural advantage over attackers of an equal cost. This is nothing more than simple common sense and perfectly logical and understandable. Cost is only a minor factor in balance and in this case, a very minor one. TB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{DHU}Screed Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 The only thing I find myself having trouble with is Artillery in space and ground campaigns. In space, the ability to hit your space station with enormous destructive capability from all the way on the other side of the map is rediculous. Same goes when you are attacking that space station. To just send in Tie scouts and have 4-5 Broadside cruisers bombard the hell out of the station w/o ever worrying about a reprisal is rediculous. Sure you can rush some fighters in to kill the missile frigates, but all you need to do is have 3 Tartan or Corellian Corvettes sitting around them with just one ISD to ward off the bigger capital ships. The fact is, the attacker or defender with alot of Broadside Cruisers can completely dominate the map w/o ever worrying about losses. Now for ground campaigns, Artillery is ungodly. There isn't a single unit in the game that can stand a chance against 5-6 Artillery pieces. Your only hope is to bomb the hell out of them or rush in alot of units and take MASSIVE losses. I know when I do a ground assault and see the enemy has artillery, I basically play a very long and BORING waiting game. Most of the time I tip toe around calling in bombing strikes on the enemy and when I get the the base I call in that bombing strike to take out any artillery and do a massive rush with all my units into the base and take out the Heavy Engineering facilites before it spawns more artillery in. My biggest complaint is the Artillery's capability to completely wipe out hordes of infantry within 1 or 2 volleys. You can bring in some AT-AT's to take out the Rebel artillery, but you cant back the AT-AT's up with ANYTHING else, therefore the AT-AT's get completely raped due to the fact that a smart player will have plex soldiers standing by the Artillery. You try to support the AT-AT's with infantry and they will die in 1 volley. You try to support them with Maulers/AT-ST's/Tanks anything, and you will suffer MASSIVE losses making it a Pearic victory. Artillery needs to be removed from the game period. Matter of fact, I feel so strongly about this, I think it needs it's own thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Alec Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 The only thing I find myself having trouble with is Artillery in space and ground campaigns. In space, the ability to hit your space station with enormous destructive capability from all the way on the other side of the map is rediculous. Same goes when you are attacking that space station. To just send in Tie scouts and have 4-5 Broadside cruisers bombard the hell out of the station w/o ever worrying about a reprisal is rediculous. Sure you can rush some fighters in to kill the missile frigates, but all you need to do is have 3 Tartan or Corellian Corvettes sitting around them with just one ISD to ward off the bigger capital ships. The fact is, the attacker or defender with alot of Broadside Cruisers can completely dominate the map w/o ever worrying about losses. Now for ground campaigns, Artillery is ungodly. There isn't a single unit in the game that can stand a chance against 5-6 Artillery pieces. Your only hope is to bomb the hell out of them or rush in alot of units and take MASSIVE losses. I know when I do a ground assault and see the enemy has artillery, I basically play a very long and BORING waiting game. Most of the time I tip toe around calling in bombing strikes on the enemy and when I get the the base I call in that bombing strike to take out any artillery and do a massive rush with all my units into the base and take out the Heavy Engineering facilites before it spawns more artillery in. My biggest complaint is the Artillery's capability to completely wipe out hordes of infantry within 1 or 2 volleys. You can bring in some AT-AT's to take out the Rebel artillery, but you cant back the AT-AT's up with ANYTHING else, therefore the AT-AT's get completely raped due to the fact that a smart player will have plex soldiers standing by the Artillery. You try to support the AT-AT's with infantry and they will die in 1 volley. You try to support them with Maulers/AT-ST's/Tanks anything, and you will suffer MASSIVE losses making it a Pearic victory. Artillery needs to be removed from the game period. Matter of fact, I feel so strongly about this, I think it needs it's own thread. Thats not much of a problem with me. Three mon cals will tear that stuff apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.