[MOD] EAW: Open Conflict

[Tal Odo-ki]

- added Dodonna in an Assault Frigate

- moved Piet and Dodonna to tech level 3

- corrected some values of the Venator to correctly reflect its class as capital ship

- raised the shields of all starbases (level 5 station now has 4 times the shield of an ISD)

- increased the armor of starbases against most attacks

Thank you.

[Tal Odo-ki]

The reason for the liberty cruisers higher recharge rate is because I read somewhere that they had the more sophisticated shields compared to the ISDs.

Not "more sophisticated". The Mon Cals (all of them, not just the Liberty) had backup generators. You should reflect this in the game by making sure that any Mon Cal-based design recharges faster than ANY Imperial or other Rebel ship.

[Adonnay]

Thank you.

 

You're welcome

 

While I might not always answer to a proposal or suggestion I always read them and either take them into account and balance them with other ideas or implement them directly (although some things may just fall off the edge because I forget to write them down ).

[Goldenshadow]

I think the Imperials are nice and powerful in the early game until the rebels get Home One, That damned thing is invincible. For one, it was killing my ISD in like 10 seconds all by itself and I couldn't make a dent in its shields. Not even the hypervelocity gun can penetrate the shields. The shields just drop to about 50% then he actuvates boost shields and they are back to 100% in no time. Every I've faced Home One, I always lose. The only chance I have of winning is auto resolve, that will sometimes kill Home One for me.

 

Also, The tartan cruisers are way too big. Its supposed to be a corvette class, not a frigate. and it is still made out of paper, if you are insistent about making it so big, then increase the health, shields and weapons so its actions match its size. It looks odd when a nebulan b frigate can destroy ship twice its size. I'd rather see it return to its original size

 

I also noticed that concusion missiles don't pass through shields. I like it, but you need to make missiles do slightly more damage against shields to compensate

 

I'm having a hell of a time trying to kill rebel infantry without my artillery and tie maulers..hint hint. AT-ST kill infantry nicely, but they are shredded by missile troops.

 

Imperial 2-M repulsor tanks are too weak against everything. Their only role is cross water and shooting down buildings behind enemy lines.They get slaughtered if you use them in the front lines, which is strange since they have shields, they should last longer than AT-ST. Give the hover tanks a tougher armor. When those shields are gone, or when there is missile troops, those tanks die really fast.

 

Price for ISD is insane. Its probably cheaper and more effective to just use victory cruisers. As long as you don't run into Home One

 

Whenever the rebels use Kyle Katarn, there are always 2 of him on the same map. 2 icons and 2 units.

 

 

Just so my entire post isn't critism. I love this mod. When I first played it and saw those new lasers and scaled up victory SD, I liked it very much, and many of the changes are good. I'll be sure to post some more if I see anything else that can be improved.

[Tal Odo-ki]

I think the Imperials are nice and powerful in the early game until the rebels get Home One, That damned thing is invincible. For one, it was killing my ISD in like 10 seconds all by itself and I couldn't make a dent in its shields. Not even the hypervelocity gun can penetrate the shields. The shields just drop to about 50% then he actuvates boost shields and they are back to 100% in no time.

I've had an entire Imperial fleet of 4 Victorys and 6 Acclamators (with mod version .005 or thereabouts) be unable to punch through the shields of a boosting Nebulon, so your experience with Home One is hardly surprising. The solution is to (try to) wait until until the boost expires and then quickly pound on it. Also hammer it with LOTS of ion cannon and missiles.

 

Also, The tartan cruisers are way too big. Its supposed to be a corvette class, not a frigate.

According to the official Star Wars website, it's a 600m long cruiser. Go yell at LucasArts.

 

FYI, corvettes are vessels under 200m, frigates are vessels between 200m and 350m, cruisers are vessels 350m or larger, and Star Destroyers are at least 900m long (the size of the Victory).

[Meethos]

Using the new update, here's my thoughts:

The pop cap is almost right on the money, if you could increase the pop cap for each planet by +3, I think it would be perfect.

 

I think the Venator is now overpriced, even though its stronger know and has a bunch of fighters, victories still shred them. I was thinking about 9000 credits is a good price.

 

Here is my thoughts about the space cap for various units (kinda based on your prices).

 

Ship Name; Current Cap -> New Cap; Price

 

Liberty 23 -> 20 19000

MC80 20 -> 18 14500

Venator 18 -> 14 14000

Assault MkII 15 -> 10 4700

Nebulon-B 12 -> 8 2000

Marauder 10 -> 6 1800

Marauder 8 -> 6 2100

C. Gunship 5 -> 4 1350

C. Corvette 4 -> 4 1250

A-Wing 3 -> 1 500

X-Wing 3 -> 1 450

Y-Wing 2 -> 1 210

Ackbar 35 -> 10 Hero

Antilles 6 -> 2 Hero

 

Death Star 15 -> 40 20000

ISD 25 -> 22 24000

Victory 15 -> 16 11000

Acclamator 14 -> 14 6500

Interdictor 10 -> 10 11500

Broadside 10 -> 6 1800

Tartan 5 -> 6 1800

Avenger 1 -> 1 800

Scout 1 -> 1 240

Piett 30 -> 10 Hero

Acclamator 16 -> 10 Hero

 

All the other Hero's and land units are fine. Looking at this though I think prices need to be scaled proplerly.

 

I have a space battle saved that involves the Planetary Ion Cannon and have been testing various settings. Here are my observations: I think the Ion Cannon should have its firing rate reduced to 105 seconds. Its not overbalacend and you get to use Ion cannon more than just once a battle. Also I noticed that with the new Anti-fighter hardpoints that are set not destroyable, are immune to the Ion Cannon, which kind of deafeats the purpose of having it. So I set all the hardpoints of a Victory SSD to destroyable and that worked. Though it had one interesting side affect. After all the visible hardpoints on a ship are destroyed the Hull of the ship remains until you inflict more damage to it(I assume destroying the non-visible hard points or its health). I actually think this is a good thing, now instead of the ship exploding after you destroy its last gun, you must now finish off its hull. Seems more realistic to me. Perhaps you should try it on a ship and see what you think.

 

Now I just need a save with a battle for the Hyperveloctiy gun.

 

About Space Stations, I have a question for everyone: What should each space level space station be able to (by itself) sucessfully defend against?

 

I think they should be able to defend against 3-5 ships of the same tech level.

 

Here's what I think they should have in way of fighter garrisons (the other ships are fine):

 

Level 1

4 X-wings 3 Tie Fighters

2 Y-Wings 2 Tie Bombers

Level 2

6 X-wings 6 Tie Fighters

4 Y-Wings 4 Tie Bombers

Level 3

8 X-wings 9 Tie Fighters

6 Y-Wings 6 Tie Bombers

Level 4

10 X-wings 12 Tie Fighters

8 Y-Wings 8 Tie Bombers

Level 5

12 X-wings 15 Tie Fighters

10 Y-Wings 10 Tie Bombers

 

I also think the launch rate should be set to 5.

 

Well, those are my ideas, do with them as you will, keep up the great work.

 

Edited for Spelling.

[Tal Odo-ki]

FWIW, I agree with everything in Meethos' last post, except the DS. It should be more expensive than even Meethos wants it.

[Meethos]

FWIW, I agree with everything in Meethos' last post, except the DS. It should be more expensive than even Meethos wants it.

 

Thanks glad to know I'm not out way in left field, with my ideas. As for the DS, I know it has a garrison but they need to prevent Red Squadron from surviving the battle somehow.

 

Other than mentioning the Venator price, all those prices listed are from the latest update. I think the DS should easily cost above 50000 credits if not alot more above that. IIRC Tal you provided the prices for the capital ships, do you have prices for the rest of the ships as well?

 

Not "more sophisticated". The Mon Cals (all of them, not just the Liberty) had backup generators. You should reflect this in the game by making sure that any Mon Cal-based design recharges faster than ANY Imperial or other Rebel ship.

I think this will help the MC80 against the Victories.

 

I did already widen the firing arcs of both, the turbolasers and the torpedoes.

concerning the accuracy... I've brought the accuracy of the Victory in line with the other turbolasers (made them slightly less accurate).

Very good to hear.

 

I see so the ships are actually supposed to miss when shooting at the broad side of a barn . Well i guess it doesnt matter as long as the shoot equally worse, but i wouldnt want to be the gunnery officer on the bridge when vader demand a explanation to why the guns keep missing the homeone just 200m away

 

The problem is that there is no physics based system in place. I think it would be nice if the misses still hit the ship or if another ship got in the way it hit them instead. The thing is you either hit a specific hardpoint or you don't. So unfortunatley we have to live with watching shots go wide of the intended target.

 

I think the Imperials are nice and powerful in the early game until the rebels get Home One, That damned thing is invincible. For one, it was killing my ISD in like 10 seconds all by itself and I couldn't make a dent in its shields. Not even the hypervelocity gun can penetrate the shields

 

Really, playing as the Rebels, I think the exact opposite, the AI brings about 4 Victories into a battle (not including his re-enforcements) along with Piet plus the Acclamator Hero and I usaully lose Home One my MC80 and usaully about 3 Venators and my Assault MkII (which is usaully the first to go), if I try and slug it out (on Medium difficulty). One of the problems is ships can shoot over your ship to hit hard points on the other side, but your hardpoints can't shoot over your ship to hit them in return. Which hinders the Mon Cal ships alot.

 

Edited for Spelling

[Tal Odo-ki]

Tal you provided the prices for the capital ships, do you have prices for the rest of the ships as well?

• X-wing: 150,000
  
• Y-wing: 135,000
  
• A-wing: 175,000
  
• TIE: 60,000
  
• TIE bomber: 150,000
  
• TIE scout: 125,000
  
• Action VI bulk freighter: 1,000,000
  
• Firespray-31: 120,000
  
• Slave I: 380,000
  
• YT-1300: 100,000
  
• Gallofree medium transport: 350,000
  
• IPV-1: 3,342,000
  
• Marauder Corvette: 2,398,000 (canon version)
  
• Corellian Corvette: 3,500,000
  
• Corellian Gunship: 4,800,000
  
• Nebulon-B: 9,000,000
  
• Acclamator: 29,000,000
  
• Interdictor: 52,240,000
  
• VSD I: 57,000,000
  
• VSD II: 50,000,000
  
• Venator: 59,000,000
  
• Mon Cal MC90: 131,800,000 (provided since I don't have the price on a MC80)
  
• ISD II: 145,670,000 (provided since I don't have the price on an ISD I)
  
• Golan I: 26,191,000
  
• Golan II: 28,988,600
  
• Golan III: 39,435,000

[Meethos]

I guess knock off the last 3 zero's on everything and we are good to go?

 

I wonder how much it cost to build the death star?

 

I figure the Tartan would cost around the price of the Corellian Corvette, or a Lancer if you have the price on that.

 

So since the Venator cost more than a VSD II does that mean it should be stronger (I know more expansive doesn't always mean stronger)? Do these prices reflect the same time period, or when they were in mass production. Cause if its a different time period, just reduce the cost Venator, cause its outdated (I suppose we would need to do the same for Acclamator).

 

As far as the space stations go, if I'm gonna purchase a level one station that costs tens of thousands of credits, it sure better be able to hold off an entire fleet. Or use those prices for levels 3,4,5. And make levels 1 about 10,000 and level 2 about 20,000. As you all know I'm all for buffing up spacestations.

Though since according to cannon only wealthy planets or ones of strategic value had Golan defenses this would be realistic. I think the Galactic conflict would be interesting with these prices. Though both sides should start with a station.

 

Thanks for the prices.

[Tal Odo-ki]

I wonder how much it cost to build the death star?

You don't really want to know that ...

 

I figure the Tartan would cost around the price of the Corellian Corvette, or a Lancer if you have the price on that.

4,760,000. The Lancer has the exact same firepower as a Tartan. It's one of the (many) reasons that LA creating the Tartan is so annoying to me.

 

So since the Venator cost more than a VSD II does that mean it should be stronger (I know more expansive doesn't always mean stronger)? Do these prices reflect the same time period, or when they were in mass production.

The prices are for new ships, so obviously it's when they were being made. Not that it matters, as there is no inflation in the Star Wars universe.

 

Thanks for the prices.

You're quite welcome. I don't have the time to mod EAW myself (too busy modding two other games), so the least I can do is give Adonnay the info so that he can do it for me.

[rocketeer]

@meethos: I just think we have to be careful with those spacestations, unless im mistaken they are not golan designs, but an abstract structure representing the maximum of orbital defenses a planet could acquire(lvl 5). Have you tested the last version? A lvl 5 station actually shredded my homeone and 3 Mon Cals ... And that was after i took down its shields with red squadron .

 

Another problem might be that the rebels need a lvl 3 station(and tech lvl 3) to built a comparable ship the empire gets at tech lvl 2(acclamator) which can be built on a lvl 2 station. So if we now would make starbases very expensive we problably have to change something.

 

Just think about smaller maps too, some only have a dozen planets, and your income would be around 2000 max. Maybe implent a jump somewhere, lets say up to lvl 3 starbases cost double and perform like now, but going from 3 to 4 and 4 to 5 gets really expensive(these are the lvl you get capital ships at), and they also get increased defenses. That would also encourage building lvl 5 stations only in systems like kuat and sullust that can built capital ships.

[haard]

About accuracy, I find it disturbng that a Acclamator or VSD can reliably take out a bomber or fighter wing in seconds using turbolasers. That just should not be, in my opinion.

 

Apart from that, I now find the Venator very useful - even though it cannot stand toe-to-toe with a Victory, as long as you have other units to soak damage it fulfills it's role as carrier spledidly.

[Tal Odo-ki]

Apart from that, I now find the Venator very useful - even though it cannot stand toe-to-toe with a Victory, as long as you have other units to soak damage it fulfills it's role as carrier spledidly.

It's not supposed to be able to go toe-to-toe with a Victory. It's severely outclassed in gunnery. But if it can hang back and let its fighters do the work ...

 

The problem is that EAW's small maps do not lend themselves to carrier-style battles.

[Meethos]

@meethos: I just think we have to be careful with those spacestations, unless im mistaken they are not golan designs, but an abstract structure representing the maximum of orbital defenses a planet could acquire(lvl 5). Have you tested the last version? A lvl 5 station actually shredded my homeone and 3 Mon Cals ... And that was after i took down its shields with red squadron .

 

Exactly my point, they represent the ENTIRE planets defense. Planets often had several Golan Defense Platforms strategically placed in orbit around their planets, not to mention some type of local defense force. But they were expansive and not everyone planet could afford them, so they relied a few corvettes (or whatever small ships they could afford) and lots of fighter squadrons. Outer Rim planets had virtually no defenses.

With stations being expensive, not every planet will have one, and you'll have to rely much more on your fleet to defend you. Attacking a planet that has orbiatal defenses is not something that should be done lightly.

 

Another problem might be that the rebels need a lvl 3 station(and tech lvl 3) to built a comparable ship the empire gets at tech lvl 2(acclamator) which can be built on a lvl 2 station. So if we now would make starbases very expensive we problably have to change something.

I have yet to test a level five station, but those results are very encouraging, now if station levels 1-3 could do the same against ships of their tech level, I'd be happy. A level 2 station should then be able sucessfully defend agianst 3-5 Acclamators. Also did you note that in that price listing Acclamators cost about 3 time what I suggest for a level 1 station.

 

Just think about smaller maps too, some only have a dozen planets, and your income would be around 2000 max. Maybe implent a jump somewhere, lets say up to lvl 3 starbases cost double and perform like now, but going from 3 to 4 and 4 to 5 gets really expensive(these are the lvl you get capital ships at), and they also get increased defenses. That would also encourage building lvl 5 stations only in systems like kuat and sullust that can built capital ships.

In a previous post I mentioned that planets should be worth more, also the modifer on mines should be increase, so you are not forced to spam mines on all your planets just to get a sustainable income.

 

Good point about smaller maps, all my suggestions have been for the large Galactic Conflict that Adonnay edited. Which these changes would work nicely.

But we don't have to use these prices, but we should use them to set new lower prices that maintain the same scale between units as much as we can. Or just knock off 4 zero's and everything will keep the same scale and prices within or very close to the same scale Petro used. With the most expansive ship being the ISD at 14,567 credits. That would work. I still think no mater what the size of the Galactic map the DS should be ALOT more expensive.

 

Edited for spelling.

 

Now Tal if you'll kindly provide us with prices for land based units......

 

About accuracy, I find it disturbng that a Acclamator or VSD can reliably take out a bomber or fighter wing in seconds using turbolasers. That just should not be, in my opinion.

Actually they don't, if you notice its those pesky anti-fighter hardpoints Adonnay added. The turbo laser rarely hit your fighters.

[rocketeer]

Yep, the turbolasers of a victory have the same accuracy as all turbolasers, atleast against fighters and bombers. They only had improved accuracy vs corvettes and bigger ships.

 

Edit: But its anti fighter cannons seem to be more precise than those of a mon cal 80 for example, which has far more in turn. If the victory is actually better at taking down fighters than a MC 80 it would be easy to increase the accuracy of its guns to the same value the MC 80 uses. Just test it, adonnay needs this kind of feedback .

[haard]

It's not supposed to be able to go toe-to-toe with a Victory. It's severely outclassed in gunnery. But if it can hang back and let its fighters do the work ...

 

The problem is that EAW's small maps do not lend themselves to carrier-style battles.

 

I agree completely; I meant to state that I think the Venator is nicely balanced for it's mission now.

 

 

Actually they don't, if you notice its those pesky anti-fighter hardpoints Adonnay added. The turbo laser rarely hit your fighters.

 

Ah, so that's it. But since I had only turbolaser hardpoints left to destroy, I assume they are indestructible? In that case, they should in my opinion not be that effective, since they negate the rebels fighter advantage almost completely.

[rocketeer]

How about a generic armor increase for the bombers? Right now if i got it right the Y-Wing has more armor than the Tie bomber for example ... Maybe adonnay hasnt looked at the fighters yet.

 

Edit: In exchange we could reduce the range the fire their torpedos at. Afaik the bombers are supposed to get 'under' the shields and then fire their torpedos, so it doesnt make much sense for them to be firering them at some long range.

[Meethos]

Ah, so that's it. But since I had only turbolaser hardpoints left to destroy, I assume they are indestructible? In that case, they should in my opinion not be that effective, since they negate the rebels fighter advantage almost completely.

Well if Adonnay takes my advice about the Planetary Ion Cannon, then they will be destructable, just not targetable, so you must damage the ships hull in order to destroy the Anti-Fighter hardpoints.

About the accuracy, your probably right as I never build them with rebles, only use the Garrisons, and they do seem to die quickly. The space cap on them needs to be reduced and if the Addonay likes the new pricing scheme (Use Tals data but divide by 10,000) then fighters will only cost like 15 credits. Which I think would make the rebels use them much much more often.

 

Edit:

 

How about a generic armor increase for the bombers? Right now if i got it right the Y-Wing has more armor than the Tie bomber for example ... Maybe adonnay hasnt looked at the fighters yet.

In exchange we could reduce the range the fire their torpedos at. Afaik the bombers are supposed to get 'under' the shields and then fire their torpedos, so it doesnt make much sense for them to be firering them at some long range.

I think reducing the anti-fighter accuracy is a better solution. As for the firing range I know in the X-Wing series fighter/bomber torepedo were mainly used to bring down sheilds, so firing at long was much safer.

As far as flying 'under' the shields, that all depends on how far the shields extend beyond the ship. If its like the Naboo Fighters In Episode I, than flying under the shields would be impossible as they only extended mere inches from the ship. In NJO there were many examples of X-wings shields being adjustable, to surround just the single fighter or extend it out so small flights of X-wings could have overlapping shields. As far as Capital Ship shields go, the rebels could punch holes in the shields by repeatedly hitting the same spot over and over again.

 

Sorry for getting off topic.

Edited for spelling.

 

I got a question, is possible to increase fighters/bombers awarness (would that be their line of sight?) without removing the Fog of War (Speaking of Fog of war its kind of pointless in space since fighters had IFF systems and what not. Though FoW should remain over asteriod fields and nebulas.). Because often when you keep your Venators in the back lines, the fighters that spawn from them like to stay there instead of entering the fray. When your micromanaging your big ships, its kinda of annoying to have your fighter sitting back out of the action.

[Tal Odo-ki]

Now Tal if you'll kindly provide us with the land based units......

As requested:

• typical rebel armor: (DR 2); 500cr
  
• stormtrooper armor: (DR 5); 8,000cr
  
• blaster pistol: 500cr
  
• blaster rifle: 1,000cr
  
• Merr-Sonn PLX-2M Portable Missile System: no official price (I've seen figures ranging from 2,800cr to 5,000cr that people have made up)
  
• combat speeder bike: Shields 0, Hull 16 (DR 5), laser cannon (4d8); 8,000cr
  
• skiff (unarmed): Shields 0, Hull 20 (DR 5); 23,000cr
  
• Rebel Hovertank: Shields 0, Hull 35 (DR 5); Twin Blaster Cannon (5d8); 35,000cr
  
• rebel airspeeder: Shields 0, Hull 30 (DR 5); twin laser cannon (5d8); 50,000cr
  
• TX-130S Assault Repulsortank: Shields 0, Hull 70 (DR 5); twin medium laser cannon (5d10); unknown price
  
• AT-ST: Shields 0, Hull 60 (DR 5); twin linked blaster cannon (4d10), twin light blaster cannon (2d10), concussion grenade launcher 4d6+1); unknown price
  
• AT-AT: Shields 0, Hull 180 (DR 15); twin heavy laser cannon (6d10), twin medium blasters (3d10); unknown price
  
• Golan Arms DF.9: Shields 0, Hull 30 (DR 5); Anti-Infantry Laser Cannon (4d8); 15,000cr
  
• Atgar 1.4 FD P-Tower: Shields 0, Hull 20 (DR 5); Light Anti-Vehicle Laser Cannon (3d8); 10,000cr
  
• Bacta Tank: 130,000cr (includes cost of 300 liters of bacta)
  
• KDY v-150 heavy anti-orbital ion cannon: Shields 0, Hull 500 (DR 15); 12d10x5; 500,000cr

[rocketeer]

Fighters at a price of 15? Sorry i dont think this will work, i dont know about the empire ai but it will surely screw up the rebel ai. I dont know about you but i really dont want to see 250 X-Wing squadrons and 500 Y-Wing Squadrons attacking one of my systems. Not only would the fight take ages but it also would be somewhat unrealistic imho.

 

P.S.: Like i said, the victorys anti fighter cannons are more accurate than the other ships, its most likely a bug/unintended(like the greater accuracy of their turbolasers). I mentioned raising the armor of the bombers because they usually die before even being able to complete a single bombing run, even if no corvetts/tartans are around.

 

Edit: Did you read my post about the AI massbuilding venators when they still had the to low price? If the AI can build 1000 fighter/bomber squadrons for the price of a single ISD it will do so, under certain circumstances.

[rocketeer]

@meethos: I think what you mean with the fighters is what is referred to as aggro radius in online games, it should be rather easy to increase this. Maybe its even possible to make only garrisoned fighters/bombers autoattack enemies, cause i agree the micromanagement gets a bit much now that almost all bigger ships have fighterwings.

[rocketeer]

Oh and another reason why we cant completly take these price values is because(correct me if im wrong tal) this rpgs take place on a smaller scale, if its anything like the rpgs i know you have a certain amount of money and have to construct a army with that.

 

Now this game is taking place on a galactic scale(well its supposed to, need more planets), so we cant just assume that the price of a armor(500cr for rebels) automatically includes the soldier. And likewise for ships, a x-wing might be rather cheap compared to a capital ship, but the rebellion had problems finding pilots. I feel that the price of ships and vehicles should not only include their value, but also take into account how difficult it was for the rebellion to acquire/operate it.

 

Edit: What i mean is that it should probably be easier costwise to get a single mon cal then lets say 200 squadrons X-Wings. Similar applys to the empire, there is a reason why the battle of endor did not just consist of 1000s of fighter squadrons duking it out, and the superweapon of the empire wasnt 1.000.000 Tie squadrons either

[Tal Odo-ki]

Oh and another reason why we cant completly take these price values is because(correct me if im wrong tal) this rpgs take place on a smaller scale, if its anything like the rpgs i know you have a certain amount of money and have to construct a army with that.

Okay, since you insist: you're wrong.

 

The scale of any particular RPG is up to the gamemaster and his players. The campaign may be limited to 2-4 characters conducting what you and I would consider insignificant adventures (those that do not have any impact whatsoever on the Galactic Civil War), or the campaign might be grand in scope with player actions completely altering (ie: changing canonical history from that point on), subtly meshing in with, or directly a part of the canon events.

 

In the Far Orbit Project, players control a Nebulon-B frigate (crewed by almost a thousand NPCs) which mutineed after Alderaan (becoming the first Nebulon to not be under Imperial control, and the direct cause of the Alliance getting their hands on the ship plans) and that is acting as an Alliance privateer. Actions in the campaign mesh within the backstory of events between ep4 and ep5. In my own Far Orbit campaign I've had space battles that are quite similar to some of the ones in EAW when you are at tech 1 or 2 and have small fleets.

[rocketeer]

Hehe i didnt mean the scope or the impact, ill try to explain what i meant on a rpg i know so to aviod having to make assumptions.

 

So in warhammer 40k you have to build yourself a army, that can consist of a variety of vehicles and troops, there are socalled codexes that tell you what armament each unit can carry and what kinds of units you may use for the different kind of armies. Now i may make myself a army consisting only of spacemarines(some kind of genetically engeneerd supersoldier) . Nothing stopping me, but if we talk about epic scale we have to include the fact that in the whole human empire in this game, there are only 1million of these supersoldier, each in a order(think of church knights) of 1000th. But at the same time there are thousands of worlds and billions of regular soldiers.

 

But that fact has nothing to do with the rpg, cause you would never come into a situation where you would make a army with more than a few 100 of these supersoldiers.

 

So if there was a epic game about this rpg we couldnt just built 2mil of these supersoldiers and go on a rampage, there simply dont exist that many.

 

Edit: EaW is kinda similar to that, we cant just built thousands of x-wings/y-wings and use them as suicide bombers just because they are easier to produce than capital ships. Because rpgs tend to focus on tactical battles, you dont have to worry about where your capital ship/bomber-wing comes from, you invested the cr and whoosh its there .

 

Edit2: Usually rpgs also dont include having to wait years for the construction of your capital ship in some backwater system to finish.