[MOD] EAW: Open Conflict

[rocketeer]

Percentages are not as good, they are just a multiplier, might aswell raise the hp directly. I guess they are useful for creating weaknesses/strengths against certain weapon classes but apart from that ...

[Tal Odo-ki]

Hmm does that hull include the effectiveness of the armor or is it raw hull? Since we cannot include figures like damage reduction(now that would be useful), we have to include it in form of additional hp ...

The Venator has the same DR as the MC80 and ISD (20% better than the Victory classes). So the 88% versus the MC80's hull is an apples-to-apples comparison. Sorry to disappoint you, but (ignoring fighters) the Venator is simply inferior in all respects to a MC80. The only thing the Venator has in its favor is fighters and realspace speed. (The Venator is almost 75% faster than the MC80 in realspace, even faster than a Corellian Corvette, but I don't know if that's reflected in the game.) Otherwise it's outgunned, out-shielded, and out-hulled as compared to the MC80.

[Adonnay]

I guess it's about time I made a table with all relevant data in it... *sigh*. These are the parts of modding I don't really like... balancing. So boring.

 

edit: wow... didn't know the Venator was that fast. Have to change that... though the acceleration should be worse than that of the CC I suppose.

[rocketeer]

Well that seems weird to me but ill take your word for it. I actually wanted the Venator to be a special ship for the rebellion in that it would have been the only ship with more armor than shields, damn canon, it gets in the way with my ideas .

 

Edit: Ok just reduced its shields, now its still special .

[Meethos]

Since we've been balancing shields what about their overall health as well.

 

Ok I went through the XML codes and added up the hard point values (Destroyable Only) for every ship to compare against there tactical Health and each other. Here are my findings (All values are from 008):

 

Ship Name Hard Points Tactical Health

Home One 18000 20000

Accuser 9700 11000

Star Destroyer 9700 9700

Hail Storm 9000 2000

Liberty 8400 8400

MC80 8000 8000

Venator 7200 7200

Judicator 7200 4500

Victory SD 6000 6000

Acclamator 4050 3200

Assault Frigate 2000 2000

Interdictor 1850 700

Nebulon-B 1300 1300

Pirate Frigate 675 675

 

As you may notice the Acclamter, Interdictor, Judicator and Hailstorm all need to have their Tactical Health raised to match their hardpoint value, to prevent the rare occurence where they are destroyed prematurely.

 

Here are Galactic Conquest space stations(Both Empire & Rebel are the same):

 

Level 1 Station 5000 1600

Level 2 Station 8000 2200

Level 3 Station 11000 3000

Level 4 Station 14000 5000

Level 5 Station 18000 7000

 

Skirmish Space Stations (Both Rebel and Empire are the same):

 

Level 1 Station 7000 1600

Level 2 Station 10000 2200

Level 3 Station 13000 3000

Level 4 Station 16000 5000

Level 5 Station 20000 7000

 

Probably wouldn't hurt to do Stations either.

 

Heres info to compare against Corvettes (Tactical Health only):

 

Sundered Heart 1800

Slave I 1000

Millennium Falcon 800

Tantive IV 800

Tartan 700

Broadside 650

Corellian Gunboat 550

IPV 500

Corellian Corvette 450

Marauder 400

YT1300 400

Laser Maruader 300

Merchant Freighter 300

 

And Fighters:

 

Lord Vader 600

Luke 400

Red Leader 400

Escort Ties(Vaders) 300

Wedge, Biggs, & Porkins 200

Y-Wing 40

Pirate Fighter 40

Tie Scout 30

X-Wing 30

Tie Fighter 30

Tie Advanced 25

Tie Bomber 25

A-Wing 25

Z-95 Headhunter 25

V-Wing 25

 

Enjoy, I can do a shield listing as well if you like.

 

Edit: I wish this board didn't parse spaces.

[Adonnay]

As you may notice the Acclamter, Interdictor, Judicator and Hailstorm all need to have their Tactical Health raised to match their hardpoint value, to prevent the rare occurence where they are destroyed prematurely.

 

This only occurs if you have any non-targetable but destroyable hardpoints, else you can ignore the tactical health (as I did). Never had a problem with a station destroyed too early because of a low tactical health. But I can change that of course... makes it look better

[rocketeer]

@meethos, nice list

 

@tal, how about making this easier, just tell me which values are not set in canon so i can balance the ships towards the gamemechanics without leaving the canon realm .

 

Im thinking about stuff like special ability strength/duration. Can i for example give the Venator the ability to permanently(toggle) the majority of its weapons/engine energy towards the shields, for a constant medium boost? And give the Liberty on the other hand the ability to transfer part of its weapon/engine energy for a short time and great boost?

 

Also if stuff like that is also set in canon(i hope not, this is NOT startreck after all ), can we get away with stating in the tooltip that the ships is a slightly modified design? I mean LA made whole new ships up, surely we can get away with slightly modifying some, god knows there are enough subcategories of ships.

[Meethos]

This only occurs if you have any non-targetable but destroyable hardpoints, else you can ignore the tactical health (as I did). Never had a problem with a station destroyed too early because of a low tactical health. But I can change that of course... makes it look better

Nor have I, but according to the Petro guys it can happen.

 

Hey if you need any tables made let me know, don't mind doing it.

 

@meethos, nice list

Thanks

[Adonnay]

Im thinking about stuff like special ability strength/duration. Can i for example give the Venator the ability to permanently(toggle) the majority of its weapons/engine energy towards the shields, for a constant medium boost? And give the Liberty on the other hand the ability to transfer part of its weapon/engine energy for a short time and great boost?

 

As I told you before... making an ability permanent will result in the AI using it permanently, without any tactics.

[rocketeer]

As I told you before... making an ability permanent will result in the AI using it permanently, without any tactics.

 

Yes but thats intended, the ability will reduce its speed pratically to zero. So the AI will use the carrier like its intended, keeping it behind the lines instead of rushing it into your lvl 5 station and getting wtfpwnd before it even launched all its fighters . Thats especially important if we implent the canon speed tal mentioned.

 

Edit: Well, and human players get to enjoy another lvl of complexity.

[Tal Odo-ki]

edit: wow... didn't know the Venator was that fast. Have to change that... though the acceleration should be worse than that of the CC I suppose.

I was mistaken in my earlier post when I said the Venator was 75% faster than a MC80. I was looking at the Nebulon's stats at the time. Sorry about that.

 

The Acclamator is the same speed as the Venator. Both are 16% faster than a Corvette/MC80/ISD and 75% faster than the Nebulon. Of all the warships (excluding pirate vessels) in EAW, the Nebulon is the slowest.

[rocketeer]

So ... your saying a ISD is supposed to be faster than a nebulon? I think im getting a headache now ...

[rocketeer]

@tal: Whats the relative shield/armor difference between a ISD and a Mon Cal?

[Tal Odo-ki]

So ... your saying a ISD is supposed to be faster than a nebulon? I think im getting a headache now ...

The ISD (and Interdictor) and MC80 are 50% faster than a Nebulon. Depending on the source, the Corellian Corvette either has the same speed as an ISD, or is 25% faster.

[Meethos]

While I was making the above list I noticed a couple interesting things:

 

The Acclamator currently has a 'Not Targetable', 'Destroyable' Hardpoint called the Hull.

 

Also is it intentional that Assault MKII, Interdictor, HailStorm and Pirate Frigate don't have anti-fighter hardpoints??

 

Edit: Nor do stations for that mater...

 

BTW I found two small XML errors in the Squadrons.XML Instead of commenting a line out they used two < instead and it cause an error(at least when you load it up in Explorer).

 

Thats all.

[Tal Odo-ki]

@tal: Whats the relative shield/armor difference between a ISD and a Mon Cal?

The ISD has the same base shield strength as the MC80 (the MC80 has backup shields, which the ISD lacks). The ISD has 16% stronger hull. No ship smaller than the ISD has a hull that strong. Not even the Liberty. (Home One is over twice the size of an ISD.)

[Tal Odo-ki]

Also is it intentional that Assault MKII, Interdictor, HailStorm and Pirate Frigate don't have anti-fighter hardpoints??

 

Edit: Nor do stations for that matter...

According to canon, the Assault Frigate MKII and Interdictor lack any anti-fighter defenses. The Interdictor's role is as a specialized support vessel (not intended to get involved in close action), and the Assault Frigate is intended to be a heavy hitter to be supported by corvettes. The stations are clearly an error.

[Meethos]

According to canon, the Assault Frigate MKII and Interdictor lack any anti-fighter defenses. The Interdictor's role is as a specialized support vessel (not intended to get involved in close action), and the Assault Frigate is intended to be a heavy hitter to be supported by corvettes.

Thanks, didn't know that, though I think thats a bad design flaw

[rocketeer]

The ISD has the same base shield strength as the MC80 (the MC80 has backup shields, which the ISD lacks). The ISD has 16% stronger hull. No ship smaller than the ISD has a hull that strong. Not even the Liberty. (Home One is over twice the size of an ISD.)

 

Hmm the MC 80 is tougher than i thought, how would a MC 90 compare to the ISD? Anyway i will give the ISD less shields, but a much better recharge. Otherwise he just couldnt compare to the Mon Cals, having weaker shields and just 16% more hull ...

[Adonnay]

While I was making the above list I noticed a couple interesting things:

 

The Acclamator currently has a 'Not Targetable', 'Destroyable' Hardpoint called the Hull.

 

Also is it intentional that Assault MKII, Interdictor, HailStorm and Pirate Frigate don't have anti-fighter hardpoints??

 

Edit: Nor do stations for that mater...

 

Thats all.

 

That Acclamator hardpoint was the one I tested the additional hull integrity with (the thing we spoke about further up). But the hardpoint is not used anymore in the ships hardpoint list.

 

On the anti-fighter topic... Tal already answered

The Assault Frigate is a specialized assault vessel (hence the name) whereas ships like the Victory, MC80 or ISD serve multiple purposes and are therefore armed in a more flexible way. Same with the Interdictor, it's only purpose is to prevent the enemy from escaping and it will most asuredly be very well guarded (considering its price). Besides, the lasers it has are also (somewhat) usable against fighters and bombers.

 

BTW I found two small XML errors in the Squadrons.XML Instead of commenting a line out they used two < instead and it cause an error(at least when you load it up in Explorer).

Thanks, I'll correct that immediately

[Adonnay]

The stations are clearly an error.

That hurts

Those stations have been invented for EAW, they are no known category or type so we can't know if they have anti-fighter weapons

Besides I think those stations are strong enough that they don't have to fear a few fighters. The large lasers are not as inaccurate as the turbolasers and no squadron lives very long within the firing range of a level 5 station, point-defense or not.

[Adonnay]

BTW I found two small XML errors in the Squadrons.XML Instead of commenting a line out they used two < instead and it cause an error(at least when you load it up in Explorer).

Thanks, I'll correct that immediately

 

Erm... if I find it. Where exactly did you see this?

[Meethos]

That Acclamator hardpoint was the one I tested the additional hull integrity with (the thing we spoke about further up). But the hardpoint is not used anymore in the ships hardpoint list.

Umm actually it is, at least in 008.

 

 

HardPoints>HP_Acclamator_Weapon_FL, HP_Acclamator_Weapon_FR, HP_Acclamator_Weapon_FC, HP_Acclamator_Weapon_BL, HP_Acclamator_Weapon_BR, HP_Acclamator_Weapon_BC, HP_Acclamator_Anti_Fighter_FL, HP_Acclamator_Anti_Fighter_FR, HP_Acclamator_Anti_Fighter_BL, HP_Acclamator_Anti_Fighter_BR, HP_Acclamator_Engines, HP_Acclamator_Fighter_Bay, [b]HP_Acclamator_Hull[/b]</HardPoints> 

 

Note: Its the last entry.

 

Or you can just make the hardpoint not destroyable.

[Tal Odo-ki]

The MC90 has DOUBLE the base shielding of an ISD (plus it has backup generators), and the same hull strength. Moreover, it has equal turbolaser firepower and about 90% of the same ion cannon firepower. Plus it carries the same number of fighters as an ISD. However, the MC90 trades all it's anti-fighter armament for a half-dozen proton tubes (a big design flaw in my opinion).

 

The New Republic's Defender SD has the same hull as an ISD, 2/3 more shielding (no backups), 60-fighter capacity (versus 72 for the ISD/MC90), and considerably more firepower than even the MC90. It, too, lacks any anti-fighter armaments. Apparently the New Republic deems that capital ships don't need to defend themselves against fighters. Or that the onboard squadrons are sufficient for that task. Given the quality of New Republic starfighters, I might even agree. OTOH, post-Endor Imperial fighters are nasty ...

[Adonnay]

Nor have I, but according to the Petro guys it can happen.

 

Hey if you need any tables made let me know, don't mind doing it.

 

Thanks

 

That would be great... to have an overview of all the numbers would help alot in balancing I think. Right now I'm doing this by browsing through all the ship files which is... umm... time consuming.