CorranSec Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Vostok- I'm not quite sure whether I should be insulted or not. Oh well. Thanks? I think? Luke's dad- I don't think that the 'speedy fighters' should be more powerful in battle than the normal fighters, but faster. So I guess we should just dampen the Interceptor's lasers a bit. Don't worry, they'll still have four, they just won't do as much damage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Agreed again. In all the flight simulator Star Wars games, if you were going faster you had more power in your engines and less could be put into lasers. I guess it doesn't exactly hold when the actual fighter is built to be faster, but it still makes sense. I'll also apologise to Corran on this thread. Sorry, I must have had a bad day yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Flight sims: Not exactly. In the case of the Interceptor, Avenger, A-Wing, etc. speed had nothing to do with weapons power. You lost some "ammo" if you can call that ammo but the weapons power was still pretty much the same. But for balance reasons it's the only thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 By putting heaps of power into engines, you drained your laser power pretty quickly, so eventually you couldn't shoot at all. Perhaps that could be an option for the "speedy fighters"- click a button called "Power Conversion" or some such, and it gains a speed boost but it does very little damage/can't shoot at all. I was thinking of including the same thing for the X-Wing (close S-foils). How does it sound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 The X-Wing closed its s-foils to jump to hyperspace and for atmospheric flight. And it would kinda be useless...it all depends on your speed boost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Well... in plenty of SW space sims that I've played, closing S-foils to get around quickly and then opening them up when you're near the target was a pretty good tactic. I'm trying to recreate that in GB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Yes maybe but in an RTS it might be kind of useless like I said. It all depends on the speed boost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 The speed boost would be big enough not to be useless, but not big enough to be overpowered. Maybe about as fast as a normal TIE fighter. Or is that too much? To balance it out, I think that it might take a couple of seconds for the S-foils to open-close. This is to prevent people speeding their X-Wings into combat, opening and letting off a couple of shots, then closing and speeding away. With the extra time, it means that the X-Wing is vulnerable for those few important seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Though I like the idea, closign S-foils sounds like too much micro. But if we had an "Explore" command like in Empire Earth and other games, then it could be cool to see the X-Wing close it's S-foils and zoom around quickly. In this case it wouldn't be too micro-intensive and will better fit the use of having S-foils closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 That would also suck...if you can remember the hotkey it's not micro-intensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 I ask you, Vostok... what is so terrible about having to think just a little bit more about what your unit is doing? And why, oh why, should we revert to that horrid 'explore' option which means that you don't have to think at all? Yet another example of how EE is a game which requires no brain... But anyway, this won't be horrible micromanagement. It's good micromanagement. It makes people think more about their fighters (which should be the most prominent units in the game) and the capabilities of their fighters, and makes the X-Wings more unique. It's useful for traversing long distances. For example: "Oh, I need to get some fighters over here fast! Here's my X-Wing squadron. Okay, I'll fly them over here... *hits S-foil hotkey* Okay! I'm at the battle! *hits S-foil hotkey*" *laser fire* *explosions* Aren't S-foils great?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Hey I was just saying people might think it too micro-y. I don't mind micro at all. I want pilots, don't I? And they're fairly micro-y. But now that you explain it like that it seems cool. It would be kind of like deploying cannons. This would be an ability that only Rebel fighters get, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Wow! Vostok and I are agreeing! Quickly, someone take a picture! To be more specific, only Rebel X-Wings would get it. I don't think A-Wings have S-foils. But if anyone does find other craft with S-foils, or if the NR ends up with a kind of X-Wing, I'd like to fit them in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Well B-Wings have S-foils. And when I said Rebel fighters I just meant X-Wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 It could also be made for the B-Wing. And if the Missile Boat was put in th game, its SLAM system could be used for similar purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 What was the Missile Boat for again? (Please don't say 'firing missiles'...) Vostok- Hmm. Yeah, you're right about the B-Wing, but I think it might be a little unbalancing. It suits the X-Wing best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Personally im a fan of using unit replacement, for example (part of my SWGB2 idea) Rebels- X-wing --> A-wing Y-wing --> B-wing Empire- TIE Fighter --> TIE Interceptor TIE Advance --> TIE Bomber (Bomber based on Advance) This keeps canon units, keeps the feeling of advancing by getting new units to replace your old ones, and eliminates the need for the designers to create their own units (for exmaple, the Naboo Advanced Fighter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Why should we do unit-replacement (and reduce the amount of units) when it's a lot better to have a wider variety of different units? I swear you have something against air units. Let's have a look at your examples. X-Wing/TIE Fighter: An all-around space superiority fighter. A-Wing/TIE Interceptor: A fast fighter but not as good at all-out combat (not quite true for the Interceptor, but gameplay>realism). Neither could replace the other, but both could be good in their own right. Y-Wing: A bomber that can carry a variety of different payloads, but generally attacks fixed installations (with bombs! That's right, a bomber with bombs). B-Wing: An anti-capital ship fighter, which also has some dogfighting ability. Neither could replace the other, but both could be good in their own right. TIE Advanced: A much more powerful space superiority fighter. Highly uncommon. TIE Bomber: About as different from the Advanced as you can get. A bomber that can carry a variety of different payloads, but generally attacks fixed installations. Neither could replace the other, but both could be good in their own right. You're worried about keeping canon units, but you're in fact reducing the amount of canon units available, while I'm adding more as you progress. The 'feeling of advancement' doesn't really apply to having a unit replaced by something that is completely different. Aircraft in general and fighters in particular are the most important units in the movies (apart from maybe Jedi), and to reflect this it's best (and a lot more fun in general) to have plenty of different air units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Actually thats not true. If you go and look at the Star Wars databank, it specifically says that the B-wing replaced the Y-wing in all combat roles. Also, why do a modification of the X-wing or TIE fighter when there are more advanced designs available to take their place? The upgrades to the A-wing and Interceptor would not only change the art but also give the aircraft increased speed, which would give it even more realism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Perhaps it did (the B-Wing replace the Y-Wing). I personally doubt it. Still, the more units the better, and thus we have the Bomber (Y) and the Anti-Cap Ship (B). They aren't 'advanced designs.' That's like saying the X-Wing is an 'advanced design' of the Headhunter. They're completely different ships, made by completely different companies, with completely different abilities and for most of them completely different purposes. I'll put it simply: That's like upgrading a Strike Mech to a Mech Destroyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 In case you didnt know, military equipment is always being replaced by more advanced designs (eg M-60 --> M-1, F-15 --> F/A-22 etc) which sometimes look nothing like the system they are replacing. Also, what i have stated is supported by the Star Wars databank, even with the B-wing doin ground-attack missions. Finally, this is the system used in GB anyway, so whats your problem with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Corran-The MIS(missile boat) was made as a counter to the Tie Defender(if you have played all of the missions in Tie Fighter you will remember) At has huge amounts of warheads and is the deadliest anti-cap-ship ever made. You could carry over 30 proton torpedoes! 30! Windu-Having a B-Wing AND a Y-Wing adds more units which is good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Windu: Everyone has said this to you, but I'll say it again. Star Wars is not real life. There's a big difference between replacing something with an advanced design and replacing it with something that does a completely different task! You wouldn't want to replace the M-1 tank with the F-15 fighter, would you? Or the F/A-22 with the B-2 stealth bomber? Perhaps that is true about the B-Wing and the Y-Wing. But gameplay>Realism, and the more units the better. "Finally, this is the system used in GB anyway, so whats your problem with it?" No offense, but that's a particularily bad argument. It's a terrible system, but for some odd reason GB had very few air units, and thus it was probably the only one available. My problem with it is that it decreases from the amount of technologies and units. Variety is best, and air unit variety is especially important. Luke's dad: Okay, so the Missile Boat could be the Imp anti-cap-ship fighter. What would the Assault Gunboat be then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 I can't believe you used another real-world example Windu! I thought you would have learnt your lesson by now. Anyway the fact that B-Wings replace Y-Wings is just EU really. I think the Y-Wings would be able to take a lot more damage than the flimsy-looking B-Wings, as well as carry a bigger payload (I don't care what EU says). So they would both still have purposes. At the Battle of Endor, the largest space-battle we've ever seen in a Star Wars movie, there were X-Wings, A-Wings, Y-Wings and B-Wings. If they get replaced when an upgrade becomes available, what are the Y-Wings and X-Wings doing there? Shouldn't they have been decommissioned and sold to poor planetary defense forces to make way for more A-Wings and B-Wings? No, they were not. You should be able to create all four to stay true to the movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Wow. Another thing we agree on. I should start to keep a tally.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.