[C6 Voting] Ship Changes

A 2D turn based stratgey simulator to be played in conjuction with SWFA

Moderators: nickersonm, insecttoid3, Corran_Horn

bob_2010
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Ark, US
Contact:

Post by bob_2010 » Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:00 pm

I would like to take this chance to point out the edit post function. Not only can it be used to correct unseen grammatical and spelling errors but it can also be used to add information to a post, reducing the need for multiple posts that are posted in rapid succesion by one user.
where am i now?

User avatar
Del
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 12:00 am
Location: currently in Canadia
Contact:

Post by Del » Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:04 pm

Ravager looks fucking cool.

Disclaimer: my answers haven't been very constructive lately, but trust me, you don't want to know why ;) .

[ 22. July 2003, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Del ]

Turgidson
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:00 am
Location: France

Post by Turgidson » Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:29 pm

Problems for Ravager and Tyrant are that :
- first, they'll only be available once SWNR8 will have been released, and that might last another year :D
- second, they're fan-made, whereas OSD is EU (it's, in fact, Giel's Flagship, and apparently, GMs currently want to model it like it should be)

But, yeah, the models are excellent, since of SWNR8 quality.

Turgidson
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:00 am
Location: France

Post by Turgidson » Wed Jul 23, 2003 12:15 am

> General note about carriers :

IMHO, since fighters get reduced hyperspace mobility, the carriers (CRCR and ESC) will become very useful. Therefore, I don't think that the current pricing is right. It should be higher, especially for ~72 hangar space, and while hangars are becoming an important feature. An increased price around 400 should be much, much more logical IMHO (these ships were priced only for their combat abilities (AA), and it was already a fair price - thus, NO reason to reduce the prices, at the contrary it should go higher, else the bigger true "carriers" (MC80carrier) are useless).

> about corporations and such

It's all about "mastering technologies and processes". TFs and even ISD MkII are, at the time of the campaign setup, rather "old" technologies. It can be supposed that the processes to build a TF only from the plans are widely mastered (that's like building a Mig-21 if you have the plans, and building a F-22 if you have the plans - first case is probable, second case is nearly impossible unless being the corporation which designed it).

Another possibility is a warlord "capturing" a facility, with the personel. It is probable that TD/TF facilities would be sabotaged, and, anyway, very hard to capture since heavily protected. At the contrary, TF factories would be less protected, thus easier to capture.

And, thus, we don't need to have independant corporations to explain how IPs also get TFs, TIs, TBs, ISDs... cuz, anyway, if the corporations were independant, why wouldn't the NR be able to buy ISDs, MISLs and such ?

> Nap

Haven't seen the Aegis in my sources, thus assumed it was fan-made. Anyway, if it isn't faster than ISD, that's prolly OK. I still think that Dominator would be the most interesting addition.

About the "holes" in the shiplists : OK for the existence of the IM "large capship" hole, and the RP "supercapship hole". The hole between VSD and ISD is less a problem, because, in most cases, we'll have "enough vps" and thus the "hole" is naturally filled by ISDs and VSDs themselves. Also note that, despite the holes, IM has the best ship of the "medium" class (ISD), the best ship of the "large" class (OSD), and the best supercaps. I admit it's an arbitrary feeling, since Dauntless (for example) could be seen as the best of the "medium" class, too.

More interesting is the proposed changes :
- for adding a "small-medium" IM ship, that's OK as long as it doesn't negate the RP speed feature (that is, ship stays with ISD's speed, or at least ain't faster than MC75)
- for the Home One : I pretty well know that, from canon (movies), it is not supposed to be a battleship, and its weaponry is poor. The main problem is that, in fact, Home One is quite an outdated design, which makes its age especially in comparision to more modern NR units... but, since it's one of the most canon units there (and since, from SWTC, there's a possibility that, in fact, there was at least another Home-One type ship at Endor in RotJ), I don't think we should scrap it.
Now, what should it be ? I'm not against making it a very good carrier (large hangars, perhaps lartgest in the game, tough shields, high hitpoints, mostly AA weaponry but quite abundant, high supplies, high troop count too), but it means another ship has to (partly) fill the hole being made, and it only makes sense if we don't get cheapo 280/290 vps carriers of 72 hangar (as I wrote : make these small carriers more expensive, please - this is a balance issue IMHO).
- for the Dauntless : well, if Home One becomes a carrier, it's clear that Dauntless should be beefed up a bit. The problem being that, basically, the "new Dauntless" should cover the combat advantages of the two ships it replaces (while being complementary with the "new Home One"), and thus is not simply the combat stats of the "old Home One" (basically means it should have the advantage the current Daunt has over Home One (speed), while having Home One's combat toughness). This would make it an approx 2.0-2.5k vps capital ship, fitted with very good weaponry (appreciable number of HTLs), good hull (anyway, a "balanced" one, no super-toughie nor paper-thin), good speed (the one of the "old Dauntless", 160 sublight), but at the expense of very small hangars, and possibily relatively small troop capacity too.
- for the Bulwark : when you say that two should have a fair chance of beating a SOV, I think you're thinking to make it in the 9-10k vps range. IMHO, this would break the balance. First, for this reason : a 9-10k supership is something that can be afforded without too many hassles (like old Eclipse in C4), a 20k supership is appreciably harder to get, and a 30k+ supercap will probably be rare. Thus, we would see a lot of Bulwarks... which means that, at the end, the faction relying more (or, able to rely more) on raw firepower would be the NR (!!!). Thus, I don't think it's a good idea at all, because it would give the NR an even increased advantage in the large capital ship department, and even if NR lose a direct counterpart to the OSD (but GE doesn't get a direct counterpart to the Bulwark, so, that's "even" if you want). Also note that if Bulwark goes big, the RB shipset will, indeed, get better capships than the IP shipset (also true for Dauntless, BTW). I'd rather see thse two possibilities :
* don't change it, or keep it close to the 6k range (directly opposite the OSD, and 3 units needed to challenge a SOV)
* boost it to the "smallest true supercap" slot, that is, something in the 15k vps (that way, it'll be more rarely seen). To avoid having it doing the same than Viscount, push Viscount further, perhaps even to the 24k range. Thus, NR would have an (important) hole opposite the OSD, they would fill the hole for the "normal supercaps" (SOV and SSD for GE, Bulwark and Viscount for the NR), and have a hole in the "big supercap" (no Eclipse). Still, and even if in some game it was supposed to be a fair match for an SSD (but a 8kms one maybe ? :D ), I don't think the Bulwark should be something really super, whereas the Viscount could (should ? is ?). BTW, isn't the Bulwark a supposedly old design, or even a converted ship ? (note : could use an upgraded Bulwark, but, then, partly fan-made ship).


As a conclusion for that part :

Yeah, "seperating" Daunt and Home One a bit more could make the game more intersting (since currently, Home One is merely looking like a tougher but slower Daunt). I'd agree to the change if, as I said, the Dauntless isn't losing its current advantages, and if we find a solution for the RB shipset. If Dauntless becomes an excellent battleship, then perhaps it would be better to give Home One to the RBs instead of giving Dauntless (since RBs are not supposed to have a capital ship advantage, especially compared to IPs - and CSD fill the low part of the "big-medium" equation). Of course, Home One is currently seen as a MC with huge symbolic value, but if we were thinking of it merely as "Home One Class" or even as MC-put_a_number_here it won't be such a problem (still, MonCals are very unlikely to sell designs to others, but this would apply to MC75/80/80A/80B as well).

No, beefing up the Bulwark to the 9k-10k vps would be bad IMHO, for balance purposes. It'd better stay in the current price range (means an increase of 1k vps is OK, if followed by ship changes of course). It'd be possible to make the Bulwark in the "small true supercap", while boosting the Viscount, but, then, the RBs would prolly lose their biggest cap, which might not be such a good idea, AND it might make the NR perhaps too much biggie-oriented.


These were just a few thoughts, as you see I don't systematically reject changes, but the curretn NR shipset is fine as it is (doesn't mean we can't improve both IM and RP shipsets).

Note to Bob : sorry, didn't use edit, but posting a new answer changes the time for last post so others knowt a new post is there, in addition edit doesn't have a "read topic" frame, and anyway, it isn't really such a problem to have two posts following each other.

[ 23. July 2003, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Turgidson ]

Hawkwind
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Manchester, England
Contact:

Post by Hawkwind » Wed Jul 23, 2003 12:38 am

you know whats amazing...throughout that entire speech ....he dident use his quotegun once [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Turgidson
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:00 am
Location: France

Post by Turgidson » Wed Jul 23, 2003 1:11 am

Originally posted by Hawkwind:
you know whats amazing...throughout that entire speech ....he dident use his quotegun once [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Cuz it wasn't needed, and cuz quotegun was in maintenance check. But, don't worry, quotegun will be back, and worse than ever. :D

Darth1o9
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: Ipswich, England
Contact:

Post by Darth1o9 » Wed Jul 23, 2003 1:26 am

well actual zee gave me the Ravager model some time ago, i just have to fins were i put it, and actual multiple post due to the fact that it wouldnt let me post them one post.

Lama what the hell you on about its to big, the OSD is now 6km long if i remeber right, its smaller. and a side note what the hell does it matterif its fan made, not alot really, i would really class the Chiss ships as cannon as the CSD was just a remodeled Pen.

That was also a pic of the Enforcer, if you had read the post you would have noticed it was a pic UNDER the stats for teh Enforcer, anouther idea for replacing the Pen.

[ 23. July 2003, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Darth1o9 ]
Image

Visit the Galactic Conquest online Website <a href="http://www.curseuppl.com/" target="_blank">here</a>

Turgidson
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:00 am
Location: France

Post by Turgidson » Wed Jul 23, 2003 1:30 am

Official policy of Zeelich about SWNR 8 models is that we can use them, but only once SWNR 8 is out. Now, I dunno what the exact policy for Ravager is, but I think the GMs would need a written agreement from Zeelich anyway. That you have been given a copy of the model, doesn't mean you're allowed to use it in another public mod.

[ 23. July 2003, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: Turgidson ]

Darth1o9
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: Ipswich, England
Contact:

Post by Darth1o9 » Wed Jul 23, 2003 1:33 am

erm zee gave me the model to use for my mod. on a side note they probly could, Kuat drive yards make like all the cap ships the IP's cant have, and to be fair the SSD has been round sinse after yavin

Senior Fleets makes all teh tie fighters, as you say its controled, and fighters like the TA have been in service since just after the battle yavin, well by my sources, so, well that wouldnt make them hard sercets.

That is teh way it is, i mean if a bloody droid can end up with the plans for the deathstar, some how i think that a indoe faction, after all this time could end up with the plans for a TA, dont you, but saying that, how did they get the plans for a ISD, why didnt any shipyard they capture with plans for them get destroyed, its all teh same turg, more crap from you

[ 23. July 2003, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Darth1o9 ]

Turgidson
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:00 am
Location: France

Post by Turgidson » Wed Jul 23, 2003 1:55 am

ISD was widely produced, a website like SWTC estimates there were more than 10000 ISDs in the whole galaxy.

TAs and TDs might be relatively "old", but that's like, say, comparing them with the F-117A. Even with the plans for it, a low-tech country would be unbale to build such a bomber, whereas it could build a Mig-21 without problems.

Fighters are usually extremely demanding in terms of technology, large ships are a bit less (just compare how long 'til an aircraft carrier gets obsolete, with how long 'til a superiority fighter gets obsolete - OK, now it's more about systems).

And : TAs and TDs weren't produced everywhere like TFs, TBs and TIs were (or like ISD was), thus it's much harder to find a facility which has the plans (and still doesn't give the way to master the processes, don't forget that TAs and TDs have very miniaturised equipment (hyperdrive, shields that fit a very small TIE sphere, and without speed/manoeuvrability compromise) that isn't widely available, and includes hard to master technological processes). (OK, perhaps the V38 should stay IM too, but, you see, we're being nice here, and anyway V38's equipement is at a few compromises of speed/manoeuvrability, at least compared to the best TIEs)

[ 23. July 2003, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: Turgidson ]

Post Reply

Return to “Empire vs Republic”