Tal Odo-ki Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 An RPG is nothing at all like WH40K. There is an equivalent to WH40K in Star Wars called Miniatures Battles, but it has little to no relation to the RPG. In an RPG, there is nothing stopping players from doing whatever they want, other than what the GM permits in the campaign. If the players wish to be the senior officers of an Imperial task force of several ISDs hunting Rebels, that can be done. If players wish to take on the role of a sector Moff and his associates (along with all the power and wealth involved), they could do that too. The RPG has NO point-buying system for units or equipment. No such limitations exist. You can buy whatever you want, assuming you can find it and afford it. Obviously, players acting the roles of low-level scoundrels, outlaws, or rebels will be severely limited in what they can afford. And even if they can afford it, they have the ever-present Imperials to watch out for, as well as rivals, cutthroats, etc. that might wish to take their hard-earned goods from them and/or do them harm. In summary (and my apologies to Adonnay for going off-topic), you cannot and should not try to compare an RPG to something like Warhammer. They are very dissimilar games. Oh, and it's insulting to many roleplaying gamers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketeer Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Ok i think i confused your rpg with that other starwars rpg i mentioned, but if you make up a story where you command a fleet of a thousand deathstars your leaving the spheres of canon pretty fast . But to lets stop getting offtopic, Adonnay will probably go like "wtf" when he sees this Edit: Sorry to offend that wasnt my intention, i just wanted to show how a ruleset that works in a microcosmos stops making sense in a macrocosmos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meethos Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 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 Point taken. Well none of these prices reflects training, wages (at least for the empire), or takes into account the logistics to support the army. Thats why I like reducing it by three zero's, things make more sense. And I think it works great for Adonnay's Galactic Conflict Scenerio. He can correct me if I am wrong( which I well could be:D), but I think his goal was to have us use low technoligies for awhile before bringing out the big capital ships and this pricing does that great. It will make Capital ships expensive and much fewer, so you'll be more likely to protect your assets more than just throwing them away. Though your right, on a smaller map its not feasable (so don't play them ). I don't think its possible to introduce some kind of modifer that scales up the price of units depending on what size Galactic map you use. Remember in the post I was first talking about prices I said: 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. Right now as it stand, in my opinion I don't think cost of ships isn't blanced. Perhaps making small adjustments is the way to go. And to slow the games tech progression increase the cost and/or time of research. Edited for grammer. But to lets stop getting offtopic, Adonnay will probably go like "wtf2 when he sees this LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tal Odo-ki Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 the rebellion had problems finding pilots The Rebellion had far more trouble getting starfighters (and capital ships especially) than it did getting recruits willing to be pilots. Equipment, and the funds to buy such, were by far harder to acquire than volunteers. Alderaan, and Yavin-4, changed that to a great degree, but the Empire is HUGE and the Rebellion is almost insignificant by comparison. Star Wars is the ultimate space opera where a small group can prevail over literally astronomical odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketeer Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Right now as it stand, in my opinion I don't think cost of ships isn't blanced. Perhaps making small adjustments is the way to go. And to slow the games tech progression increase the cost and/or time of research. Thats exactly what i meant, adonnay obviously has a idea, maybe like you said to prolong the use of low technology ships, but unless the rpg rules would follow the same intent it would be contraproductive to use their relative unit costs to each other. P.S. And lets not forget adonnay already has adjusted the pricing of all ships extensively. Edit: We only have a few units, i think its easier to find the right costs for them by trial and error and common sense than using some figures that dont fit into the gameconcept. Since we can built a capital ship in a single day we shouldnt worry about the exact cr price, aslong as it doesnt screw up the gamebalance(like the venator for 4000 cr) it believe its fine . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adonnay Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 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. Well actually no ship in the game should be able to compete with Home One one-on-one. But I will probably reduce the power to shields ability since it's really a bit over the top I think. 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 Tartans have already been reduced in size in .007c I guess? 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 Which ship still uses concussion missiles besides the fighters (A-Wing/Avenger)? Actually all larger ships and stations (except the piratestation) should use the assault missiles which do quite some damage (maybe not to very strong shields I admit). 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. I tried this already... the side effect also has a downside. If a ship decides to shoot at this untargetable hull first, then the whole ship will be destroyed if this hardpoint is, meaning you don't need to shoot the rest of the hardpoints. Just aim at the hull and you'll see all the hardpoints suddenly take damage very fast (depending on the health of this untargetable hitpoint). Besides... they're only anti-fighter hardpoints... that shouldn't be too much of a hassle. 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. Well... attacking a ship like the Victory with a squadron of bombers is suicide... and should be, I mean just compare the prices. To successfully attack such a powerful ship with cheap and quickly built bombers you need a lot of squadrons. They can penetrate the shields and take down you ship without the need to bring down the shields... since hardly any other weapon is able to do that this is a huge advantage on its own. If I made the bombers survive longer you'll surely notice how people complain that their capital ships, worth 11000c drop like flies to wimpy little bombers worth 600c Tip: attack the Victory from behind... About the population cap... reducing the cap for (almost) all vessels and increasing the gain from planets leaves us pretty much where we were I think... masses of fleets. With 15 Planets you could already build about 24 Libertys (15 planets * 8 + 15 * 25 for a level 4 station / 20 for a Liberty) ! That's what I wanted to prevent edit: Oh yea... WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tal Odo-ki Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 About the population cap... reducing the cap for (almost) all vessels and increasing the gain from planets leaves us pretty much where we were I think... masses of fleets. With 15 Planets you could already build about 24 Libertys (15 planets * 8 + 15 * 25 for a level 4 station / 20 for a Liberty) ! That's what I wanted to prevent What I liked about Meethos' cap reductions wasn't that it allows more ships. I agree with you that fleets are better kept small. What I like is that it rebalances the ships to each other a bit better. If you use Meethos' cap numbers, then you'd have to adjust the cap limit downwards again. I just like the ratio of Meethos' numbers better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketeer Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Btw, grats to the by far most active thread in this forum, i think it shows the incredible pace this mod develops at . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adonnay Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 On the pricing topic... sure the prices still need fine tuning... but making a squadron of X-wings worth only 15c or a TIE only 6c (!)... together with a popcap of only 1 *does some math*. What prevents you from building 500 X-Wing squadrons for a price of 1 1/2 VSDs? ... I mean.... 500!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haard Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Well... attacking a ship like the Victory with a squadron of bombers is suicide... and should be, I mean just compare the prices. To successfully attack such a powerful ship with cheap and quickly built bombers you need a lot of squadrons. They can penetrate the shields and take down you ship without the need to bring down the shields... since hardly any other weapon is able to do that this is a huge advantage on its own. If I made the bombers survive longer you'll surely notice how people complain that their capital ships, worth 11000c drop like flies to wimpy little bombers worth 600c Tip: attack the Victory from behind... The problem is that with the hardier hardpoints the Y-wings often deal no significant damage at all, since even if you attack with multiple wings from the rear, they overshoot after launching and get killed. Credit for credit, bomber vs capital ship should be in favour of the bomber, but right now I think you'd need those 18 squadrons to take down a Victory. I just find it is easier to just smash down the shields and take down the other hardpoints with capital ship fire rather than using bombers as it stands now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adonnay Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 What I liked about Meethos' cap reductions wasn't that it allows more ships. I agree with you that fleets are better kept small. What I like is that it rebalances the ships to each other a bit better. If you use Meethos' cap numbers, then you'd have to adjust the cap limit downwards again. I just like the ratio of Meethos' numbers better. Some numbers surely need adjusting (Venator i.e. and the DS which I haven't really touched at all) but I can't really agree on the fighters beeing all 1 point. One of the most important point of increasing the cap (for me) was to make a difference between those throw-away TIEs and the more advanced fighter types to stress that the empire could field much more TIEs compared to the fighters of the Rebellion. I'm sure the TIEs don't need as much maintenance and manpower to keep them battle-ready. But actually this is only for skirmish, since the TIEs can't be produced in GC anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tal Odo-ki Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I think you may be using bad tactics. You need to first use a leading Y-wing to ionize the Victory, then the rest of the squadrons following right behind pound it with missiles. If the Victory is ionized, as it should be, your fighters are safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketeer Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Also dont forget that with the Venator you now get basically free garrison units like the empire. Loosing a few bomber squadrons doesnt really hurt you, tbh i found it strange that the empire gets its fighters/bombers for free and the rebellion has to pay. But luckily thats fixed now. Btw i just got attacked by the following: piets acclamator 16 broadside cruisers 14 Tie Avenger squadrons 38 Tie scouts 2 Victorys Thats only the units i killed, cause he fled in the end. Imagine how that would be if fighters got really cheap ... Let me tell that was one messy and boring fight, cause there is not much you can do when 52 fighter squadrons are orbiting your station besides just watching the show. P.S. He obviosly lost, cause i had a lvl 3 station and the homeone. Thankfully tie bombers have no hyperdrive, but that shows the oppurtunistic nature of the AI . It just builds whatever units it can afford and throws them into the fight. Edit: Btw its atm a really bad idea to use autocombat with venators ... i lost a venotor against 1 pirate frigate 1 ipv and 2 pirate fighters ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adonnay Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 Liberty 23 -> 23 19000 MC80 20 -> 20 14500 Venator 18 -> 16 14000 Assault MkII 15 -> 12 4700 Nebulon-B 12 -> 10 2000 Marauder 10 -> 9 6400 Marauder 8 -> 8 2200 C. Gunship 5 -> 9 1350 C. Corvette 4 -> 8 1250 A-Wing 3 -> 2 500 X-Wing 3 -> 2 450 Y-Wing 2 -> 2 210 Ackbar 35 -> 15 Hero Antilles 6 -> 5 Hero Dodonna -> 10 Hero Death Star 15 -> 40 20000 ISD 25 -> 25 24000 Victory 15 -> 18 11000 Acclamator 14 -> 15 6500 Interdictor 10 -> 12 11500 Broadside 10 -> 10 8200 Tartan 5 -> 8 1400 Avenger 1 -> 2 800 Scout 1 -> 1 240 Piett 30 -> 12 Hero (Tarkin) Acclamator 16 -> 10 Hero (Piett) Are these numbers better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adonnay Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 Btw i just got attacked by the following: piets acclamator 16 broadside cruisers 14 Tie Avenger squadrons 38 Tie scouts 2 Victorys The AI actually built Avengers?! I wonder how it did that... edit: The autoresolve health values have not been adjusted. I'll take the actual values of the hardpoints to evaluate the autoresolve health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haard Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I think you may be using bad tactics. You need to first use a leading Y-wing to ionize the Victory, then the rest of the squadrons following right behind pound it with missiles. If the Victory is ionized, as it should be, your fighters are safe. But for bombers to ionize, the shields must already be down, in which case a capital ship gives more bang (and survivability) for the buck. I stand by my opinion that the anti-fighter and bomber capabilities of capital ships should be low. Edit: I want to quantify my statement; what I mean is that if a capital ship need no fighter or corvette support to defend against bombers, then those crafts have no place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tal Odo-ki Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 But for bombers to ionize, the shields must already be down Not true. At least not in my experience. I have ionized the shields of a completely untouched ISD with a single Y-wing. Of course, I haven't played the game since v.005 of the mod, but I doubt the mechanics of ionization have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tal Odo-ki Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Are these numbers better? Yes. Thank you. PS - the TIE scout (and bomber) should be a "2", and the price of the DS is still too cheap (IMO). Also, the Nebulon should cost significantly more than a canon Marauder (please take a look at my posted list again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adonnay Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 The DS, yes... still haven't touched it edit: okay... 100.000c and 65 pop edit2: okay, tweaked the Autoresolve-Health values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketeer Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 The DS, yes... still haven't touched it edit: okay... 100.000c and 65 pop edit2: okay, tweaked the Autoresolve-Health values. In case you didnt already, how about giving the deathstar some kind of tougher garrison, those two Victorys seem kinda pitiful . Oh and the AI builts Avenger against me all the time ... I would go so far as to say that every fleet has atleast some of them. @haard: Every ship has a energy pool and a energy recharge, afaik energy is needed for shield recharge and weapon fire. Y-Wings ion cannon directly hurt this energy, though it seems strange that a single y-wing squadron would be able to hurt the energy pool of a victory ... but then again i never said i understand the actual mechanic behind this . On the subject of corvette and tartans needed for the protection of stardestroyers, please keep in mind those actually are carriers too, they have fighters for this. P.S. Its a bit strange how the most efficent anti bomber/fighter unit is a corvette sized ship, considering how easy it should be for a fighter wing to just avoid the ship and stay out of its weapons range. Corvettes as i understand it are not ment to accompany Mon cals or ISDs into battle, actually the survivability of a corvette getting between a ISD and mon cal shooting each other should be lower than your average fighters survivability Edit: They are kinda like patrol craft, most are not even fully fitted for combat but used as transports, its kinda like your local coastwatch, just cause they are good at catching smugglers doesnt make them suited to naval battle with destroyers and carriers . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tal Odo-ki Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 P.S. Its a bit strange how the most efficent anti bomber/fighter unit is a corvette sized ship, considering how easy it should be for a fighter wing to just avoid the ship and stay out of its weapons range. Corvettes as i understand it are not ment to accompany Mon cals or ISDs into battle, actually the survivability of a corvette getting between a ISD and mon cal shooting each other should be lower than your average fighters survivability I think you misunderstand the role of corvettes in fleet engagements. They are picket ships, meant to warn the cruisers of incoming attacks. They are not supposed to become involved in the firefight between capital ships. As you point out, they'd die faster than fighters (because they are far easier to target). EAW does not properly model this. I could kill a squadron of fighters with a one Victory a hell of a lot faster than I could kill a single corvette with an entire fleet of 4 Victorys and 6 Acclamators (when I was using v.005). Unfortunately, because EAW has such small maps, you cannot properly simulate how a Star Wars fleet battle with capital ships would actually take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketeer Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Well thats what i meant, i find the gamemechanic strange, im aware that in canon these work differently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adonnay Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 Corvettes should die faster now... Added a new ground unit type for the rebels: Wookies! *growl* Can be built after you freed Kashyyyk of course (only on Kashyyyk as well). Powerful anti-infantry (and medium anti-vehicle) unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketeer Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Yarrr pira... huh? Wookies? Those furballs? Hmm can you even use bacta on them? Or do you need a veterinarien to treat them? Ok enough wookie bashing, im sure they are a cool unit. Gotta hate to be a stormtrooper these days . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tal Odo-ki Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Wookies in EAW eat stormtroopers as if they were tasty snacks. Thank you, again, Adonnay! Well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.