Texas_Fett

Ditto here. Kudos to DG! I like the images; especially the animated one.

My biggest beef with them is that they only fire if fired upon...it doesn't matter if a fleet is in orbit and initiates a planetary assault. Oh, no! Can't fire upon them then. Having the capability to fire them in battle would be awesome, too. I'd like to see the inclusion of Defense Platforms (golans, etc.) in that manner as well. (I know we've got cards and models for them already, but I'd classify them more as planetary defenses than capital ships)

Hmm...ponder this, I shall. But...I feel like I'm signing over my first-born only to receive a bunch of spam. Not that I've done it or looked at it yet, but that's my gut instinct.

I'll gladly help expand the encyc entries, but the synopis and screenshots (especially the screenshots) are iffy.

I don't think I've ever used a browser other than IE. What's so great about Firefox?

It IS actually quite simple...and believe me, once you start fiddling around with a few cards, it'll cascade until you've editing pretty much everything. Take a look at the tutorial...it's especially helpful. Then you'll be wanting to change the models, the sounds, the .dll's...

I like the idea for the images. Especially ones that might be useful for cards, etc.

I'm siding with Trej, Mad, and SM on this one...wait and see.

I think I found it with a Google seach in early 2003. I had been searching for ANY info on the game, and had gotten all the stuff from the official site. I remember how thrilled I was when I discovered there was a way to change things in the game with RebEd...ah, the memories. {sniff, sniff}

I'm going to borrow JediIgor's format here: 1) SWR Forums community -- Gotta touch bases with a few of you jokers! 2) the Rebellion Editing stuff -- Although at irregular intervals. 3) Rebellion Reloaded -- Gotta do my part. 4) General SW News -- I'd like to see more of this here rather than mucking around on TFN, but why duplicate efforts? Besides, it's all centered on Prequel crapola these days, anyway. And I can only stomach so much Hayden Christensen. LaForge: I agree with you totally. I'd like to see the site have more detailed descriptions for the ships and characters in the default game. I had no idea who these people were, and I would've liked a better description to be found here besides the in-game encyclopedia one. I'll gladly help with that.

I second La_Forge on the other RR forums. But I, too, would like some more emoticons.

Been there...done that. Not pretty.

Actually, I think I do, but it's on my laptop at home. I'll check this evening and hopefully get it to you tomorrow. And Teukros: Military life most definitely agrees with me...but I'm stressing of late. Still, working so close to the new F-22's is a trip!

It gets even better once you start using Mask's Neb-B2. Although, it DOES tend to even out when you make 'em available to both sides...and the AI LOVES to complement SD's with Neb-Bs.

Yeah, you're tellin' me! I have no freakin' idea how or why it's happening. Golans rock! Unless you're the Rebels and you run into one guarding what you thought was a relatively undefended system. I've started using Mask's XQ2 Platform as well, giving that to the Empire from the start and giving both sides access to the Golan at a later date. But I agree with DG...use of the Battlestations hack is a must. Nothing more disconcerting than seeing a Golan headed at you through hyperspace.

I won't comment on the fighter compositions of ISDs both pre- and post Interceptors, but I'd like to chime in with what I've noticed regarding fleet compositions. First off, there are ways to take advantage of the AI regardless of whether or not you are dealing with a human or computer opponent. For example, giving the order to 'engage fighters' does not allow you to choose which specific type of craft to engage first. The AI simply decides this for you, based on the craft's threat level against capital ships and, as near as I can determine, which slot it occupies (red, blue, yellow, green). Therefore, in a late-game battle, it makes sense to have a mix of fighters, since the opponent will be forced to deal with your B-Wings and A-Wings while your X- and Y-Wings have virtual free-reign. The same can be said of capital ships. Any player worth his/her salt is going to take out the biggest, baddest ship in the opposing fleet first, unless the C2 (Command & Control) for the fleet is on another vessel. For example, if you have a fleet consisting of a Mon Cal, two Neb-B's, and a pair of Dreadnaughts, the computer will focus on the Mon Cal first and then pound on the Neb's and Dreads. It's rare that the AI will attack multiple ships (in my experience), and will even focus on a specific task force before moving on. A human player is slightly less predictable: they're going to take out your admiral and/or commander first, then focus on your big ships and/or whatever will do the most damage to their starfighter cover (he/she must obtain Starfighter Superiority to effectively assault the cap ships). Given what I've said above, I tend to create a mix of craft for my fleets. Surprisingly (or not, given its capabilities and the comments of others), I find myself building Neb-B's even into the end game, although Dreadnaughts and Bulk Cruisers have long since gone the way of the Dodo. But I find it fascinating that these early ships are virtually overlooked in battle. They're fast to build, and provide perfect support for the larger ships in a task force. I never, never, NEVER put my command staff in my best ship...they're well protected, but never on the frontline ships. (it's also best if you can have a redundant set of characters holding the same ranks on a separate fleet, as they'll take over the duties should the other fall in battle) Anyway...just my quick 2-cents. I know a lot of it is common sense, especially to veterans of the game. But I thought it was relevant to restate it.

There's another fix to this. Having experienced the 'binary crap' in many of my own loads, the way I fixed it was as follows: 1. go to an entry that is uncorrupted. 2. save/export it 3. load the uncorrupted text entry into the slot of the entry you wish to replace. (refer to Mask's tutorial for the syntax) 4. highlight the text, and replace it with your own. 5. compile and save. The error, as near as I could tell, stemmed from changing an entry within RebEd. ResHack just doesn't like it. This method allows for rectified entries, but there may be another snafu that I have to test on my new desktop. For whatever reason, I could get my encyc entries to appear correctly in ResHack and RebEd, but they wouldn't display at all in-game; it would revert to the default encyc entry.

Well, you got your wish, Thrawn. It doesn't matter, though...the right man won.

Air Force's "Star Wars Trainee" Nears End of Initial Training October 10th, 2004 (AP) Mongomery, Alabama - Mere weeks ago the Air Force announced that they were initiating a test program whereupon a devout fan of the Lucasarts game, Star Wars Rebellion, would undergo officer training. Now past the mid-point of his initial training, Officer Trainee Texas_Fett was given the opportunity to talk to reporters and describe the process up to this point. "Things have been pretty good," Texas_Fett began, "but I just have to say, my recruiter was a freakin' liar. I had TI's all over my butt from day one. And there's a procedure for just about everything...and I mean everything. I didn't know it was possible to have operational instructions for where to place your silverware both before and after you've used them. And my wife is sure going to be ticked; we have to leave the toilet seat and lid up over here, or else we get demerits." Despite his wry take on the training environment, Mr. Fett acknowledged that there were some profound leadership studies and offered a few highlights. "I'm not making this up. We have a 'Quote of the Day' from various Generals and other profound icons of wisdom that has to be memorized in the off chance that one of the commissioned staff will challenge you to repeat it. The quote for Training Day fifteen was 'Do or do not; there is no try' from Yoda. I SO had that one down." When asked about the difficulties of the Officer Training School regimen, Texas_Fett had several comments. "Not having access to a computer with internet access for the better part of five weeks sucked, but that has since been remedied. Now that I'm a member of the upper-class, things are definitely looking up. The worst part was not being able to contact my family as much as I wanted to, but that's gotten easier as well. Hey! Can I say 'hi' to 'em? {looks into the camera} Hi, BBL! Luv ya! Hey, Thumper! Hope you're still in one piece! Hey, Mask! WASSABI! Trej, Jahled, Evaders, Scathe, Jin Roh, LaForge...and all the rest, thanks guys!" Sadly, issues regarding Texas_Fett's training were not included as part of the Presidential or Vice Presidential debates, but clarification from the Pentagon on the issue should be forthcoming. Suffice to say, it appears that Officer Trainee Texas_Fett is adjusting well to Air Force life. "I just can't wait to log back in to the forums," Texas_Fett said inclosing, "I've gotta catch up on happenings. Anyone know if Rebellion: Reloaded is out yet? Anybody?"

Now for Piggy, right?

Jedi take away from the whole story, IMHO, and make every other inhabitant of the galaxy out to be inferior. They diminish the accomplishments of Joe Rebel and Sam Imperial. The prequels only reinforce that fact. I much prefer the OT where Jedi are rare. And the rarer, the better. No vote from me. I abstain.

Sorry...I hit my stride and never looked back. Much love for ya, Thrawn!

Thanks yet again, guys. Good luck, God Bless, and May the Force be with Y'all.

I'm a bit rushed for time this morning, so I'll have to keep my responses short. I'm enjoying the debate though, Thrawn. I've got problems with that assumption. 1) Japan and Germany attacked with intent to conquer, not to thwart a dictator with nuclear weapons. Japan was feeling the squeeze on its oil supply. Who knows what Hitler was thinking. 2) Pre-emptive strikes are part of the "Just War" doctrine put forth by St. Augustine. They are most certainly part of the "Rules of War", especially when that preemptive strike prevents futher death and carnage. 3) FDR assembled nine whole allies for WWII. Dubya had 39 (or 32...I'd have to double check). His father got, what?, 150 for the first Gulf War, and that has somehow become the benchmark for any new conflict. The War in Iraq was far, far, FAR from unilateral. It just lacked the endorsement of France, Germany, and a few of the older and louder members of the U.N. I'll assume that you'll change your tune for this argument after the report yesterday about the underground research facility at Al Tawaitha(sp?)...the same place where the yellow-cake uranium was found. He was actively pursuing "the bomb". 1) Saudi Arabia needs to have more done to it than just a slap on the wrist. The export of Wahabi Islam to our shores (especially to our prison inmates) is alarming, and I hold the Saudi's to blame. They're on my list, but let's deal with the immediate threats first. 2) UN resolutions would hold some weight if there were actual consequences for violating them. If they won't do it, and there's a Clear and Present Danger to America, you're damn skippy we'll do it for 'em. 3) The World Court was objected to because there were folk who wanted to try individual U.S. soldiers for deeds done while on missions in other countries, whether there was evidence for the deed or not. For example, all it would take is a false charge of genocide and the dressing up (or down) of enemy corpses to make it appear that the U.S. slaughtered innocents. Rather than have that type of frivolous litigation hanging over the U.S. when we're continuously called upon to act as the world's police force, we sought exemption. Besides, the U.S. track record on punishing it's own for wrongdoing is admirable. Take Abu Graib, for instance. It only came to light because the Department of Defense was wrapping up a 6-month investigation and had started trials & punishment phases for those involved. The system works, folks. Considering what they've unearthed in Iraq, we couldn't possibly say for certainty. But it wouldn't have been long. That would be Russia. The U.S. stockpile was drastically reduced, while the Soviets gave lip-service to the treaty. Ukraine has a lot of 'em now, but Russia still has a vast stockpile. I'm sure our nations would have words if it came to light that Canada was selling weapons to rogue states or terrorist organizations. But seeing as we tend to work together more often than not, there's no reason to censure Canada for it's uranium production. On top of that, the IAEC (International Atomic Energy Committee, right? Might have gotten the acronymn wrong) monitors the production and mining of U.N. members. So long as they abide by that oversight, there's no need for action. Subject closed then, right? The Real difference is that most are NOT soldiers fighting for a nation-state, and are therefore not entitled to POW status. They are terrorists. "War on Terror" simply is a way to show just how serious the situation against them is. Of course, the futility of the "War on Drugs" makes you question the choice in that slogan. They are terrorists and enemy combatants that may or may not know where Osama and other Al Qaida leaders are, and/or have knowledge of other plots against Western nations. Giving them any other status and allowing them rights as if they were a common criminal impedes the War on Terror and compromises the safety of every non-Muslim (and even some of them, too!) That just my point! Abu Graib WAS standard interrogation techniques for a civilized nation like the U.S.! There was no NEED for physical torture when humiliation, phychological warfare, and protein deprivation will get the same results. "Torture", as defined by the Geneva convention, is never even a part of the process. Considering that it was part of an investigation post-invasion, including Intel we have NOW that indicates we were in the right, I'd say yes. Unless you'd rather believe Al-Jazeera and the conspiracy theorists. There may have been someone who suspected, or had doubts, but considering that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee (including Sen. Kerry, I might add) had access to the SAME intelligence and agreed with the President's assessment, it seems utter folly to think that some clerk at Langley's gut feeling would override the consensus of the whole U.S. Intelligence apparatus, British Intelligence, Mossad, Russian Intelligence, French Intelligence, private assertions by King Huessein of Jordan, Pres. Mubarak of Egypt, et al. Bottom line is that everyone knew Saddam was guilty of having an active WMD program (and he did), but nobody wanted the U.S. to DO anything since they had too much invested in Iraq to support the fall of the regime. I.E., the "Food for Oil" scandal. The U.S. and the "Coalition of the Willing" just had the balls to act. They have rights, but shouldn't be considered an American Citizen for the purpose of deciding their legal rights. Human rights dictate that the prisoner receive medical treatment, adequate food, shelter, and religious ministration. I have a feeling the international community would be pissed with the U.S. if they were keeping these yahoos in the Hilton. Contrast how the prisoners are kept for both sides. Those insurgent cowards behead their prisoners even though they don't get their way. That's not earning them any sympathy. But the U.S. is the villian for keeping their prisoners healthy? Makes no sense to me. You lost me, there. Are you saying that the motive for Vietnam was political, and that it's the same thing for the War in Iraq? Ask Senator McCain whether or not the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo is comparable to what he endured in Vietnam. Which side has backed out of each and every peace proposal after an agreement has been tentatively reached? "Palestine" was a British Protectorate until after WWII. It was given to the Israelis in order to give them a homeland and a nation-state status. There was no such nationality as "palestinian" prior to that, simply Arabs of different nationalities that lived in the region of "Palestine". Also, there were already Jews living there, with a history spanning back over four thousand years, thoughout the Muslim conquest and the Crusades. You can't insist that the land was solely "palestinian". Partly, but also the stubborn insistance of the "Godfather" of all terrorists, Yassir Arafat. But I'd also point out that the U.S. has supported giving the palestinians land that was historically theirs (Gaza Strip, etc.), but the palestinians are never satisfied. Ask yourself if we're getting the full story. A Hamas cell hides in a residential complex, building several suicide-bomber belts and fostering a hatred of everything Israeli. Mossad discovers the whereabouts of the facility, and strikes at a time when they are sure to incur the least collateral damage, thus preventing a strike upon Israeli AND palestinian civilians. And that's wrong? I know this goes back to your being against the policy of preemption, but in this case it's justified. It's not a "hissy fit", it's bypassing the gridlock of the U.N. and getting the job done. Enforcing the U.N.'s resolutions for them when they don't have the balls to do it themselves. Putting a bite into the resolutions and proving that there's a reason to even have a "United Nations" in the first place. Being the biggest DOES mean the rest of the world should listen to you, especially when the U.S. fronts the cost of 24% of the U.N., more than four times as much as the next highest contributor. We constantly shoulder the burden, contribute the troops, fund the activities, yet whenever WE ask for assistance we're ridiculed and reviled. Worse yet, they actively work against U.S. interests out of some pathetic envy of our position atop the world power structure. "The U.S. isn't taxed high enough", scream the socialists. "The U.S. should bear the brunt of Kyoto, even though China is a larger polluter (but we'll exempt them, of course)," say the environmentalists. Well, we've had it! We are NOT the the beck-and-call girl for the U.N. We have our interests, and we help look out for the interests for other nations. We gave over $50 million to Kenya last year in foreign aid. Why? We give foreign aid to other nations that actively oppose us in the U.N. Why? Because we're NOT some arrogant nation of 'imperialist' militants bent on furthering the agendas of multinational corporations! Surprisingly, despite all the vitriol thrown our way, we actually care about the welfare of the rest of the world. So if a station airs the views of a Republican, they must have pro-Republican bias? (And I sincerely doubt Larry King is a 'dedicated' Republican, given his guest lists and the softball questions he gives guests like Hillary Clinton) Well, that must mean that Fox News is a liberal station, since it airs the views of Alan Combs. And CBS had an interview with a Republican last week, so that off-sets the admittedly liberal views of Dan Rather. CNN is NOT right-wing, and never has been. There's a reason why it's referred to as the "Clinton News Network". Their reporting is so far to the left, it's astounding. Look at the ratings for proof! Fox is trouncing them, despite being in fewer households and in fewer markets. And they're the last network to report anything negative about the Kerry campaign, a practive they perfected under the Clinton Administration. There's a reason Bush will only give interviews to NBC and Fox. CNN hates the Bush Adminstration. Yet you're taxed at a much higher rate than U.S. citizens, and your healthcare system makes our HMO's look good. Your military is so broke it contemplated merging activities with ours in 1999. And things are so swell that the entire province of Quebec wants to secede. Your borders are unbelieveably porous, and your nation sports less than a quarter the population of the U.S. Your national budget is eclipsed by that of Texas (who has no state income tax, btw), your inflation rate is higher than the U.S.'s, and your currency valuation is nearing half of the U.S. dollar. Yup. Things are definitely better north of the border. (BTW, I was born in Barrie, Ontario, so I have dual-citizenship and am, in fact, partly slamming myself.) Well, first off they're on Sunday mornings, not Saturday. Secondly, when you have hosts like George Stephenopolous (former Clinton spin-meister) hosting a show, and the most "conservative" host you have is Tim Russert, then the objectivity of the talking-head gab-fests is called into question. They have a history of pouncing on any potentially damaging information involving a Conservative or Republican, yet bend over backwards to explain away Democrat scandals. Tim Russert has a rep for agressively attacking his guests, researching and memorizing every known fact about that person. People dread facing Russert. Yet he ignores facts that could be embarassing for characters like Bill & Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and most prominent Democrats. Has there been another domestic attack? No. Is there a problem with the insurgents? Yes. Will it be dealt with? Damn skippy. Things are better, but we'll never be back to the same footing we were pre-9/11. Dear Lord, please explain to Mr. Thrawn how you fight a war. Thank you. Amen. What, you thought we could do it without any casualties? That there wouldn't be innocent people tragically slain in the conflict? In what war hasn't that happened? And I suppose Kerry's "kindler, gentler, more sensitive War on Terror" is the answer, right? What, surprised I'd admit that? {emphasis mine} That's where the bias creeps in. Well, I'm probably going to have to quit anyway, what with my leaving. But I've said my piece. Any rebuttal to your rebuttal will have to wait 'til November. It needs to be shortened, though, you're right.

Great job, Double-A...but...where's the entry for Voort Sa'Binring? Surely you didn't mean to exclude Piggy? Also, you seem to be having problems with the font for Face's name in his entry.