Re: ISD lack of anti fighter weponary

[Little.B]

Dont they? As far as I remember from the original demo even the VSDs crush corvettes pretty easily.

 

Thought this as well

[Xenomorphine]

I think this would unbalance the game. With anti-starfighter capacity capital ships won't encounter a real counter-unit because they can be used against everything.

 

That's where tactics come in, instead of having to rely on 'counter units'.

 

In life, the more capable ships at sea are effective against a whole range of targets. The key to get them is a combination of both saturating defences with more missiles than can be tracked and successfully intercepted and attacking from multiple different angles at the same time!

 

There is no reason why those basics would not be just as effective with future technology.

Edited February 6, 2006 by Xenomorphine

[Megajames]

Thought this as well

what mods are you using

[The Saint]

That's where tactics come in, instead of having to rely on 'counter units'.

 

In life, the more capable ships at sea are effective against a whole range of targets. The key to get tehm is a combination of both saturating defences with more missiles than can be tracked and successfully intercepts and attacking from multiple different angles at the same time!

 

There is no reason why those basics would not be just as effective with future technology.

 

Yes however this isnt based on our reality is it? Its based in another galaxy all together. And the ISD is only supposed to have 60 turbolaser batteries, 60 ion cannons, and tractor beams, which by the way most large ships in the SW universe have is just we only really see the ISD use it to rope the 'vette in, in Ep IV. So lets leave the ISD alone, lets not give it laser cannons when it never had any.

[JanGaarni]

Yes however this isnt based on our reality is it? Its based in another galaxy all together. And the ISD is only supposed to have 60 turbolaser batteries, 60 ion cannons, and tractor beams, which by the way most large ships in the SW universe have is just we only really see the ISD use it to rope the 'vette in, in Ep IV. So lets leave the ISD alone, lets not give it laser cannons when it never had any.

You left out the 12 heavy turbolaser guns and 4 heavy Ion Cannons, half on the right side of the superstructer, the other half on the left (located where it says Ion Cannon Batteries in EaW, but they look different cause EaW is using the mkII model), 2 Quad Lasercannon Trench Batteries, and 3 triple barreled medium turbolaser turrets in front of the superstructure on the mkI.

 

On the MKII the trench guns and triple barreled turrets are removed, and the 12 HTL guns and 4 Ion Cannons are replaced with 64 HTL guns, 32 on either side. Smaller caliber, but more independant of eachother.

[Guest]

That's what Tartans are for bud. ;D

 

One of the great things about this game is that you can't just build the most expensive unit (ISD) and expect to win. You must have a variety of ships in your fleet if you are to succeed, which means that your going to have to build a good mixture of corvettes, gunships, cruisers, and destroyers.

 

*sigh* another good quality about SW that has fallen to balance, in the movies the Empire never used anything but star destroyers. Example: Battle of Corusant= lots of venator class star destroyers. Battle of Endor= Lots of Imperial or Imperial II (I don't remember which) Star destroyers. Why build lots of little frigates and whatnot when you have a pwn all Star destroyer? Because of this "balance" thing again....

[Xenomorphine]

Yes however this isnt based on our reality is it? Its based in another galaxy all together. And the ISD is only supposed to have 60 turbolaser batteries, 60 ion cannons, and tractor beams, which by the way most large ships in the SW universe have is just we only really see the ISD use it to rope the 'vette in, in Ep IV. So lets leave the ISD alone, lets not give it laser cannons when it never had any.

 

What's that got to do with it? I was arguing against the logic that 'counter units' are in some way an all-pervasively wonderful thing, when all they basically are is diversity for the sake of it.

 

I'm also confused as to why energy weapons of a larger magnitude would be unable to track smaller targets. It's not as if there's any air friction to prevent the turrets moving as quickly in space.

 

I would have thought that, regardless of written fiction, those weapons should be just as capable of tracking smaller craft as any other would be!

[Gen.Vader]

you guys cant have one unit that is good against both types of units, that is what we call unbalanced playing.

 

think of the tanks in all the C&C games, when fighting against infantry, it took about 10 or more shells to destroy the infantry unit,

 

this is BALANCE

 

capital ships are effective against capital ships, anti-cap ships are good against cap ships, fighters are good against anti-cap ships

fighter ships are good against fighters, anti-fighter ships are good against fighters, cap ships are good against anti-fighter ships

 

hmm, i think i see a cycle here!(sarcasm)

[Guest]

you guys cant have one unit that is good against both types of units, that is what we call unbalanced playing.

 

think of the tanks in all the C&C games, when fighting against infantry, it took about 10 or more shells to destroy the infantry unit,

 

this is BALANCE

 

capital ships are effective against capital ships, anti-cap ships are good against cap ships, fighters are good against anti-cap ships

fighter ships are good against fighters, anti-fighter ships are good against fighters, cap ships are good against anti-fighter ships

 

hmm, i think i see a cycle here!(sarcasm)

 

yeah? well balance sucks if it means stripping away something that a unit should already be good at, that's just plain sad that the SD's don't have any point defense laser cannons in EAW like they are supposed to. just play any of the Rouge Squadron games, attacking a star destroyer head on with an X-wing is almost suicide.

[The Saint]

yeah? well balance sucks if it means stripping away something that a unit should already be good at, that's just plain sad that the SD's don't have any point defense laser cannons in EAW like they are supposed to. just play any of the Rouge Squadron games, attacking a star destroyer head on with an X-wing is almost suicide.

 

Sorry, Rogue Squadron shouldnt even remotely be mentioned as a game we should play to determine what an ISD can and cant do. If anything it should be X-wing, TIE Fighter, X-wing v TIE Fighter(with and without the Balance of Power expansion), and finally X-wing Alliance, those games were classics. Rogue Squadron was just the first in a line of dumbed down space shooters. However, balance doesnt suck, if again thats whats literally written in books. Okay the cross section says the Venator has point defense cannons..I wonder why that didnt translate over to later warships..maybe those PDCs werent powerful enough to punch through fighter shields? Heck if you play Rebellion you should know ISDs dont have laser cannons.

 

As for turbolasers and their poor ability to track..sure its space, but the gun itself is still inside the warship with artifical gravity, and of course this means it cant exactly swing and take credible aim at something doing 100 mglt.

Edited February 6, 2006 by The Saint

[Stellar_Magic]

Not to mention that inertia and friction apply even in environments without gravity.

 

Still an ISD should have some point defense weaponry, but even with that little protection its clear that an ISD isn't meant to shoot down starfighters, thats what those 6 squadrons of TIEs in the hanger are for.

[Xenomorphine]

you guys cant have one unit that is good against both types of units, that is what we call unbalanced playing.

 

think of the tanks in all the C&C games, when fighting against infantry, it took about 10 or more shells to destroy the infantry unit,

 

this is BALANCE

 

Aiii... I detested that for precisely this reason! Far too unrealistic and forcing the user to micromanage three or usually more groups of completely different units which would, in the real world, be far simpler and a lot more effective!

 

Watch 'The Beast', which is about eighties tanks from the Soviet Union and you'll see just how obviously effective even those old things are against infantry. Heck, those ones even had a flamethrower on and ability to disperse chemical grenades!

 

Of course, the two machine guns and coaxal (the one which fires precisely where the main gun does), usually featured in Western designs, are still more than enough for any tank to cut infantry to ribbons - and M1s are now finally getting a 'shotgun' round for the main gun, which the Israelis have been using for years! A shell which disperses hundreds of tiny little pieces of shrapnel and can cut down whole groups of infantry in one go.

 

Now, that's not to say that other units might not be better designed for street fighting (the Stryker, for instance, has been found to be great at using its speed to chasing down vehicles, because it doesn't rely on treads), but saying tanks are obsolete when it comes to cutting a swathe through groups of human beings is quite plainly ridiculous and only adds up to a frustrating gaming experience, for the reason mentioned above.

 

This is why I would not mind in the slightest if these sorts of things were reflected in games. So you'd have a unit which would, in a lot of circumstances, be effective against both infantry and vehicles. So what? Bet it would be useless against helicopter gunships!

 

Would dedicated anti-fighter platforms be better at knocking those targets out of the sky? Certainly. But saying a vessel like a Star Destroyer is incapable of much more than token gestures along those lines, is just bizarre. The whole point of them is that they're capable of fulfilling so many roles and are meant to represent a one-size-fits-all-variables role. Not luxuriously so, no, because it can't excel at being superior in every area, but stating it should be rendered virtually defenceless for some obsolete need for 'balance' (when it could easily be countered by using tactics like saturation) makes me wonder just how long it will take for someone to make a fantasy game which covers even half of what was shown on the elderly updated-by-fans title 'Jane's Fleet Command'.

 

Was it massively complicated? No! Very simplified, in fact! Yet still a title which, in its updated form, I play with these days.

 

I don't recall anyone crying out in horror when the 'TIE Fighter' and related simulators, very rightly, allowed capital ships to lock on and engage incoming missiles. The key was to shoot enough of them at such a range that the right amount would hit home. While I'm not going to say that this game eliminating things like that will be its downfall, I will say that if it had included them, it might be a more instantly classic, entertaining and even educational playing experience.

 

And if they can hit things as small as that, then they can surely hit fighter craft (the probability increasing, as the range closes), one would have thought.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Xenomorphine

[Xenomorphine]

As for turbolasers and their poor ability to track..sure its space, but the gun itself is still inside the warship with artifical gravity and of course this means it cant exactly swing and take credible aim at something doing 100 mglt.

 

So, why can the supposedly more dedicated weaponry do so? Probably fire control software, if anything. But if they're far enough away, as opposed to up close and personal, then the target is not going ot be moving around much - especially if it's coming straight on in an attack run!

 

The guns don't appear to be anything of the sort, in any case. They're mounted on the outside of the hull...

 

Would any of those model ships have missile launchers installed?

[WhiteSkull]

alot of people are forgetting something.

 

The empire was always about numbers and brute strengh, to add anti fighter weapons to ISD  they would have to 1- make them bigger and more costly to keep the current payload on them or 2- cut off some ion/turbolasers to make room for anti fighters.that is something the empire ( should say emporer) did not belive in.

[jedi mike]

They have ties for fighter defence they might not be as good as x wings but they defend the SD from the rebel fighters.

[Teradyn_pff]

alot of people are forgetting something.

 

The empire was always about numbers and brute strengh, to add anti fighter weapons to ISD  they would have to 1- make them bigger and more costly to keep the current payload on them or 2- cut off some ion/turbolasers to make room for anti fighters.that is something the empire ( should say emporer) did not belive in.

 

 

 

I don't think the discussion is about the SDs in the Star Wars universe, it is about the fact that the SDs modelled in the game don't have the laser turrets that they should have had according to the Star Wars universe.

[Zer_Teron]

1 ISD + 6 TIE Fighter Squadrons > 1 Mon Cal + 3 X-Wing Squadrons

[Teradyn_pff]

2 Corellian Corvettes > 2 ISD, 4 Tartan, 1 Acclimator, 1 VSD in that those 2 corvettes can come in and wipe out every single fighter and bomber spawned by the above imperial group before they can be stopped. 

[Guest]

Aiii... I detested that for precisely this reason! Far too unrealistic and forcing the user to micromanage three or usually more groups of compeltely different units which would, in the real world, be far simpler and a lot more effective!

 

Watch 'The Beast', which is about eighties tanks from the Soviet Union and you'll see just how obviously effective even those old things are against infantry. Heck, those ones even had a flamethrower on and ability to disperse chemical grenades!

 

Of course, the two machine guns and coaxal (the one which fires precisely where the main gun does), usually featured in Western designs, are still more than enough for any tank to cut infantry to ribbons - and M1s are now finally getting a 'shotgun' round for the main gun, which the Israelis have been using for years! A shell which disperses hundreds of tiny little pieces of shrapnel and can cut down whole groups of infantry in one go.

 

Now, that's not to say that other units might not be better designed for street fighting (the Stryker, for instance, has been found to be great at using its speed to chasing down vehicles, because it doesn't rely on treads), but saying tanks are obsolete when it comes to cutting a swathe through groups of human beings is quite plainly ridiculous and only adds up to a frustrating gaming experience, for the reason mentioned above.

 

This is why I would not mind in the slightest if these sorts of thngs were reflected in games. So you'd have a unit which would, in a lot of circumstances, be effective against both infantry and vehicles. So what? Bet it would be useless against helicopter gunships!

 

Would dedicated anti-fighter platforms be better at knocking those targets out of the sky? Certainly. But saying a vessel like a Star Destroyer is incapable of much more than token gestures along those lines, is just bizarre. The whole point of them is that they're capable of fulfilling so many roles and are meant to represent a one-size-fits-all-variables role. Not luxuriously so, no, because it can't excel at being superior in every area, but stating it should be rednered virtually defenceless for some obsolete need for 'balance' (when it could easily be countered by using tactics like saturation) makes me wonder just how long it will take for someone to make a fantasy game which covers even half of what was shown on the elderly updated-by-fans title 'Jane's Fleet Command'.

 

Was it massively complicated? No! Very simplified, in fact! Yet still a title which, in its updated form, I play with these days.

 

I don't recall anyone crying out in horror when the 'TIE Fighter' and related simulators, very rightly, allowed capital ships to lock on and engage incoming missiles. The key was to shoot enough of them at such a range that the right amount would hit home. While I'm not going to say that this game eliminating things like that will be its downfall, I will say that if it had included them, it might be a more instantly classic, entertaining and even educational playing experience.

 

And if they can hit things as small as that, then they can surely hit fighter craft (the probability increasing, as the range closes), one would have thought.

 

well put  that's pretty much what I was going to say except longer and well thought out 

[Xenomorphine]

well put  that's pretty much what I was going to say except longer and well thought out 

 

 

Others can agree or not, but I think it's peculiar to see such fundamental basics being ignored, which would both streamline gameplay and increase entertainment value, in a game which is built around a philosophy of doing precisely that!

[Zer_Teron]

So the two corvette wouldnt be stopped by all the capital ships standing guard? Then it would kill them somehow?

 

1 ISD > 2 Corvettes

[Teradyn_pff]

So the two corvette wouldnt be stopped by all the capital ships standing guard? Then it would kill them somehow?

 

1 ISD > 2 Corvettes

 

Here lies the problem.  The Corvettes would not be able to destroy the ISD, and they would eventually die to it... but not until they had wiped out the ISD's fighters and bombers.  Watch the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the ISD and tell me why the Mon Cal has much better aim?  Why would a retrofitted luxury liner have better targetting computers than a fully designed warship? 

 

This is a horribly lame attempt at "Balance" and is absolutely ridiculous.  Thankfully this is one of those problems that we can fix in a mod, but we shouldn't need to.  The SW history is very vast and well documented, Petroglyph people are not newbies in the game world so why do we have these, dare I say, amateurish "Balance" techniques?

[Megajames]

can we get on topic or lock this discussion

[Dreayt]

hm the general problem is the stone... thing it shouldn t be the source of balancing

why did they useinfantry in ww2??? because it was cheap....

so why not make VERY expensive things almighty(Moncal ISD VSD) and the Isd is extremly strong versus capital ships [like in the film] whereas Mon Cal is almighty but loses to a ISD ??????????

[jedi mike]

1 on 1 a Mon cal will loose to a SD, and i dont think the empires accuracy is that bad. And if u don't want Ur fighters to die keep them back until the corvettes are gone its all about tactics sure a corvette should be able to kill fighters very good and, again when i play as empire i don't feel the accuracy is that bad that just my opinion if u use good tactics even against a Superior force u could win. Thats what i think.