Thrawn3.14 Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Proposal:Increase turbolaser damage against fighters. Reason:Capital ships currently have no way of defending themselves from fighters. Considering they rarely hit fighters anyway, it would make sense for them to be able to destroy fighters with only one shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YertyL Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Proposal:Increase turbolaser damage against fighters. Reason:Capital ships currently have no way of defending themselves from fighters. Considering they rarely hit fighters anyway, it would make sense for them to be able to destroy fighters with only one shot. Well, Imperial caps spawn fighters themselves and Rebel ones have the recharge shield ability and thus can't be really hurt by fighters either - and cap ships are not supposed to be good against fighters. IMHO this is a gameplay > realism decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunSolo Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 @#23: thats no imbalance thats just bad strategy. i win every time with the rebels in space skirmish, cause of the fact of speed n power in 1ôn1 combat with xwings against ties to get to the mines earlier then the enemy. they are just quite more effectve. so they dont get a chance to build up that much sqadrons and i never get raided by tie squads that fast. no matter from easy to hard AI. as long as they dont throw tartans in at those critical points. - but i second the fix for the interdictor class. its pretty useless as it gets destroyed that fast by nearly every bigger vessel than a fighter ingame and the low range of the abilities. so nobodys using it for a good reason. - plus, that deathstar bug. its annoying. had it 2-3 times in a later game. - plus, make the shots of the units more randomly, it just looks plain dumb to see everyone of a squad shooting at the exact same time. i know there are mods out there to "correct" that, and its just like "make-up" but thats how the official game had to look like in my opinion. - plus, decrease the damage and hp of anti fighter cruisers. right now if u mix a couple of anti fighter cruisers with 2-3 capitol ships ur able to kick the **** out of everything. cause capitol ships in return cant kill those cruisers fast enough, cause the shots missing the target most of the time and all fighters and bombers are like cannon fodder since they dont have the firepower to take them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadue Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Proposal: Add Unit Combat Veterancy to the game. What is this Unit Combat Veterancy you speak of? In a nutshell, any given unit gains xp when they enter combat and defeat another unit. After "x" amount of xp has been gained, they gain a rank and with this promotion have a slight increase to their base stats. i.e. 1 X-Wing squad is created (Rank Private, Level 1, what ever you wish to call it). They then engage in a space battle. Within this match the squad kills 1 Tie squad. Upon defeating the Tie squad they are promoted to (Sergent, Level 2, what have you) and get slight increase to speed, dmg and accuracy. Veterancy promotion is structured on an increasing xp scale. So even though your promotion from rank 1 to rank 2 may only take 1 unit kill, promotion from rank 2 to rank 3 may require 2-3 unit kills. Reasoning: This will add a very stratigic aspect to the game, where players will want to manage their units alot more carefully. Sending in a rank 3 unit into combat and loosing it has much more impact than sending in a standard unit which is simply replaced by creation. It also gives players another dimension when creating fleets or ground force platoons and enables tailoring these fleets/platoons to have more veteran forces thus having slightly better fighting power for given battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P5yNerGy|TFL Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Proposal : Heres a neat idea. Bring the Nebs and Acclams and corvs down to level 1 to really give tier 1 some substance. Reasoning: In any rts there are three stages of play. - the expansion stage - Mid game battle - Late game victory/defeat At the moment the expansion stage consists only of fighters and makes this stage very weak . Once at tier2 things get more fun because of the nebs acclams and corvs but at this stage the expansion stage has already finished and the we are on to the mid game. My proposal is to make the expansion stage more interesting by allowing players to use acclams and nebulons as part of their Expansion Strategy rather then just the fighters and bombers. This is my opinion is good because That will make Victory cruisers and mk assault frigates useful for the mid game battle and heroes , with late game being the isds and moncals if it reaches that stage. ps- because acclams and nebs are brought in with corvs you have to make corvs about 1600 creds and tarts only 1300 to justify the neb easy counter to tartans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Dennis Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Proposal: Do something about Ewoks! They're throwing rocks not bombs. Reason/Perceived Imbalance: Sling-launched stones wouldn't penetrate the armor of an AT-AT yet a swarm of these little freaks can topple one in about 15-20 seconds. I lost Endor to a raid fleet and retaking it was hell. I can understand they breed like rabbits so there's bound to be allot of them, but rocks taking down hardened vehicles isn't realistic, maybe swinging/flying logs but not rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P5yNerGy|TFL Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Proposal , : forget about all my other proposals , heres some proper ones for space , since ive now played the patch a bit. - The laser turrets , decrease accuracy vs fighters by 10% ,. Shield regen rate should be decreased 50%. Reasoning , During Tier 1 game , reward for capturing a Turret influences the game too much but little skill is used to actually capture one. - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aoe4evr Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Proposal: Increase the pop cap for space battles. Reasoning: It will make the space battles a little more realistic and add a lot more strategy to it. Imbalance: Rebels fighting the Empire, the Empire essentially has a limitless supply of fighters and bombers from their capital ships. Increasing the population cap will allow the rebels to bring more fighters into the battle to defend against the Empire's fighters. Proposal: Fix the AI not leveling up correctly in single player Galactic Conquest games. Reasoning: The AI does not level up and build tech level 5 units and structures when the game is started out at tech level 1. Imbalance: The beginning of the game is hard, but once you level up, it is downright easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aoe4evr Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Oh, I forgot about this one too Proposal: Make torpedoes and missles have to bring down shields before they start damaging the hulls of ships. Reasoning: Every other Star Wars game ever made was this way, and it makes more sense. Imbalance: N/A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor the Bassis Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 proposal: create a max 7 plugin reasoning: its needed imbalance: not fair __________________________________________________ proposal: dont remove the topedoe ability to go through shields. reasoning: it makes a really good tactical tweak to the game which a lot of strategy games miss out on. imbalance: otherwise you'll just get a slogging match between two sides not a tactical battle where what you do matters. I admit its a bit annoying when you cant get rid of a bomber squadron which is pummelling your capitals but at the same time you can do the same to your opponent. It can really be a good tactical move that can save a battle if suddenly you remove the shield gens from a massive fleets capital ships and you only have a small fleet. This really is a matter of brains over braun. Do you want a strategy game or a "who's da bigga" game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
me99 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 proposal: add launch button for imperial carrier ships why?: right after they enter battle they spawn fighters on its own which get destroyed almost on sight by corvetes, I'd like to command "fighters launch" personally, when i see it appropriate. and its great suprise for opposing force imba: is there any?? proposal: lower corvets antifighter accuracy (dmg is ok) and lower fighters damage against big ships why?: one tartan and most of fighters go bye bye (with really careful micro, u can save x wing squadron with locked s-voils) imba: danger of abusing fighter spam proposal: in single player GC game add ability to withdraw single ship, single fighter squadron, single inf team, single mechanised team from battle (by single team i mean whole team not squad or one vechicle). To balance this a bit make reinforce/repair cost some credz, and maybe restrict number of teams in one army. In skirmish add possibility of restoring destroyed ships/imp space station hardpoints, add possibility of replenishing lost fighter squadrons at carrier ships, add possibility of replenishing/reinforcing decimated fighter squadrons. why?: makes game less "cannon fodderish" and gives player more control of his force imba: its single player, what imba?? and for pete's sake, TONE DOWN CONSORTIUM!!!! THATS AN IMBA!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dactillion33 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 teams so you could be empire, have a rebel ally and fight against another IMP Rebel or ZC and vice verse would make me mui happy having more skrimish maps like one for each planet well one land for each atleast higher pop caps...for land especially have ability to set time of day, weather, and alliance of natives for skrimish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi jim 1989 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 make the interdictors more useful, nothing to fancy, just extend the range of the anti missile field, and make it able to use its lasers when its got the field engaged. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- teams for skirmish (you could put them in GC to but i think they should only be in skirmish) reason: because its stupid not being able to ally with the 'enemy' opposite sides have done it numerous times in SW. the truce at bakura is the best example i think, and in the game the ZC and rebs team up in the last fight. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- give space stations the ability to boost their shields like mon cals. reason: if it were real id make sure i have that ability. to stop it being to powerful, you could make it so that laser weapons cant fire, say it drawing the power from the lasers. thatway it helps but only in the right tactical situation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ability to decide when you want your fighters and bombers to exit their carrier (emp only of course) reason: this is a strratergy game, and chuking everything out as n when every isnt very strategic. for instance you may want to keep you bombers in the hanger untill you need them, instead of releasing them as you go to get mopped up by the enemy. i think you should put an extra 2 buttons on the ship speciasl for the carriers, 1 for fighters and 1 for bombers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- giving mines a shield reason: because its anoying when your upgrading you spacestation and you get rushed by a pair of tie's, x wings or star vipers and they take out a mine. doesnt have to be a strong shield, but enough to hold of a few fighters. once again tacticly it is a bad idea to have you most valuble asset sitting there with no defence what so ever ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ make nebs more effective against fighters and corvettes less effective reason: nebs were originaly designed for anti pirate and rebels attacks, at the moment you lucky if you take down 1 fighter in a squad before they bring in bombers. they dont need to be overly powerful but to be atleast competent enough to handle a few fighters ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- change the tartans firing ability reason: the tartans have a greta ability but they loose their shields, the problem is with out the ability they are kack. i think that their rate of fire normaly should be stepped up and the special ability fire rate or time decreased. the tartans also have incredibly weak hulls. ill give you an example, i was attacking an isd with 4 bwings a tartan jumped in and started firing, but i took it out with the b wings, and i only lost half a squad, now that to me is 1 weak anti fighter unit. they didnt use their special ability but even if they hade, the lasers on my b wings would have torn through it before the missiles hit home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMan Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Proposal: Leave Level 1 Fighter/Bomber. Merge Level 2 and 3. Reasoning (What will this fix?): Only having fighters and bombers in level 1 adds a lot of thinking to be done very quickly. Many people complain that the Rebels get to places faster, then do the speed upgrade that the Empire has! once that's done you'll be evenly matched, and you can build more units faster. Level 1 is all about micro management of forces and credits, it discerns good players from great players. I find i never go past level 2 in EAW unless I am messing with someone. Level 3 takes a while to get too and all you get in a small hero, and a HVG or IG which doesn't really matter since Nebs or Acc's do they job just as well. Meaning if you have the money and Security to upgrade you have the time to build enough Acc's to win the Battle. Current Perceived Imbalance (What is the current scenario of imbalance): There is no fighter imbalance in Level 1, only a bunch of noobs who don't know how to play and want to complain. 2 and 3 need to be combined because transitioning to Level 3 is slow and pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vader815 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Proposal: Decrease attack of rebel ships Reasoning: As of now the most, if not all, rebel ships are more than a match, on a one on one face off, for their imperial counterparts and any fighters that the empire throws out are destroyed by corellian cruisers before they are of any use. Perceived Imbalance: The rebellion is too much of a match for the empire. reducing their ships' attack will force the rebellion to use tactics that fit the description of a rebellion, such as guerrilla hit and run. Proposal: Im not sure if this is a glitch or not but when I am trying to retreat the enemy units move twice as fast with double the damage. This should be fix. Reasoning: It makes retreating almost impossible to do since the enemy can quickly disable all the engines of my capital ships with in the 11 seconds it takes to retreat when it normally would take longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HK-42 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Proposal: On GC give players the choice of Pirates and the amout of pirates, Ex. Strong Pirate Fleet, Md. Pirates, Weak Pirates. Reasoning: Would make new players have a greater chance of capturing planets allowing them to have a comeback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxloef Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Proposal: Add option in GQ for random scenarios or add them back in Reasoning: Adds more dynamic and shouldnt have been cut out... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal: GQ aditional map 1 planet each faction no pirates Reasoning: adds an interesting scenario ------------------------------------------------------------------------- also i agree with the post above mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.