Joebwan

I put videos of some of the trips to Google videos so my poor low-bandwidth server wouldn't get crushed. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=miniquest

Very cool

There are some really good screen shots here! Good composition, which is no small feat to capture given the hectic nature of combat -- the subject matter doesn't want to stay still for the camera.

The AT-HA looks interesting. Do you have any information on it? Has it appeared in any expanded universe source? Does it have any "official" backstory?

There are two different build time XML tags -- one for solo play and one for skirmish play. Make sure you are modifying the right one.

Cool mod. Nice to see extensive modding. The mixture of technical and design creativity reminds me of the old days of game development where the programmer was also the designer. Another side effect is that we can see design experimentation which helps with future expansions/product development.

is basically "hull" health. When hull health is depleted the ship is destroyed. If a ship has hard points and if all the hard points are destroyed a ship is also destroyed. Hard points have their own health and for the most part, if a ship has hard points, then those take damage rather than the hull. There are (or were) some exceptions to this where damage would be applied to the hull rather than to a hard point and this was making ships too easy to destroy in certain cases. This is why TacticalHealth will typically be higher than the sum of the health of the destroyable hard points the ship has.

This is correct. Couldn't have said it better myself.

You may get the desired result (much faster fighter movement) by slowing the larger ships down and then increasing the game speed. Or you could increase the travel speed of bolts, missiles, and torpedoes greatly to compensate for the targeting issues against faster fighters/bombers. Another issue that can have an adverse affect on targeting fighters is if they are reduced in size the collision mesh is reduced in size as well, so if all other things are equal, a fighter that is 50% smaller is about 4x harder to hit.

Balance evaluations based on the demo version would be premature. Much has changed between then and now -- especially in the area of balance.

Fighters and bombers are very sensitive to speed increases. Other factors come into play that can have an adverse effect. The game does 2nd order predictive calculations for firing, but not 3rd order prediction (i.e., it doesn't take into account the rate of change in the rate of change in fighter flight movement) which means fighters become very very hard to hit at high speeds due to the time it takes for a laser bolt to reach the fighter.

We have fixed countless things since the demo version and yes that even includes improving the battle-cam AI.

Has it been determined that the weapon batteries mounted along the edge "trench" of a Star Destroyer can fire directly "upward" or "downward"? If the firing point of the trench weapons is recessed, even a little bit, then the firing angle would likely be restricted such that rotating so the top of the Star Destroyer to face the target won't necessarily allow the side guns of both sides to fire on the target. It seems reasonable that the weapon turrets located along the top of the body near the superstructure could fire directly "upwards", but then, as indicated above, the side weapon batteries would likely no longer be able to target the enemy, so it could result in less firepower overall. This tactic wasn't performed to my recollection in any movie space battle sequences which could be further evidence that this tactic doesn't work.

This is correct. The Star Destroyer is closer to an Aircraft Carrier or a Battleship of WWII era. Both of those kinds of ships were literally bristling with anti-aircraft guns, yet were sill very vulnerable to bomber attack. If caught alone and without fighter cover, even a small contingent of bombers would spell certain doom. Star Destroyers and other capital ships follow this model. There are also balancing reasons that this model is followed since a ship that could defend against all threats as well as have the firepower of a Star Destroyer would make unit force mix strategy almost meaningless as there would be only one "best choice" ship to buy.

This is essentially correct. The Airspeeder's "tow cable" is more properly called a "trip cable" in the context of attacking an AT-AT. If the AT-AT is stationary, it cannot be tripped by the cable and the cable will fall harmlessly to the ground.

I should add that you can press and it will immediately jump to a new camera angle and if you hold down the camera will not jump to another angle, but will instead linger on the current subject matter.

If I had Home One, one fighter squadron, and one bomber squadron against two Imperial Star Destroyers (w/ their compliment of fighters/bombers) and an Interdictor cruiser, the first thing I would say is.... "It's a TRAP!" Seriously though, the Rebels would be outmatched in this battle. Not by a TON, but enough that fleeing to fight another day would be the wiser course of action. Thus, I would send the fighters/bombers to concentrate on the Interdictor cruiser and redirect Home One's energy to boost shields. Home One would also try to get as much distance from the Star Destroyers as possible. If the Y-wings and X-Wings can take out the interdictor, hyperspace away in safety. If not, then charge the interdictor. It WILL be destroyed if it gets within range of Home One, but by that time, the TIE bombers will have been working over Home One pretty good. Then retreat with a battered Home One. If I'm lucky.

If I was an Imperial commander with a Star Destroyer and facing a Mon Cal cruiser with fighter/bomber escort I would probably try the following tactic: Send the TIE fighters to take out the Y-Wings at all cost. Even if it means suicide for the TIE fighters -- I can replace several TIE squadrons from the Star Destroyer's fighter bay. While this is occuring, the Star Destroyer should keep distance from the Mon Cal in order to make sure the Hangar Bay remains intact so replacement fighters can be launched while the Y-Wings are taken care of. Once the Y-Wings are neutralized, the Star Destroyer and TIE bombers with whatever TIE fighters remain flying escort will approach the Cruiser directly. The first priority is to take out the cruiser's ion cannon batteries with the TIE bombers. They will probably only get one shot at this before destruction since the X-wings squadrons would largely still be intact and their priority would definately be to destroy the TIE bombers. If I'm lucky, one or maybe both Ion Cannon batteries will be destroyed. This buys precious time as now the Cruiser cannot easily take down the Star Destroyer's shields. From this point it is a matter of maneuver. The Cruiser will try to flank the Star Destroyer knowing that the Star Destroyer cannot bring all guns to bear at a flanking target and cannot bring any weapons to bear on a target that lies directly behind the Star Destroyer. The Mon Cal cruiser has much more flexible firing angles. I would concentrate on destroying the cruiser's engines so it cannot maneuver well. I would hope the cruiser doesn't concentrate on the Star Destroyer's hangar bay or engines. Destroying the cruiser's shield generator is not an option -- Mon Cal cruiser's shield generators are not centralized and cannot be specifically destroyed. If the Star Destroyer can keep directly facing the Mon Cal cruiser, the Star Destroyer has the upper hand. If the Mon Cal cruiser gets behind the Star Destroyer, it is a whole different ballgame.

Yes we still do adventures. There was a canoe trip down the Colorado river a few weeks ago in fact. Only a small group went on that trip since we are rather busy at the moment with Empire at War. Even so, I have several big trips ready to write up -- complete with pictures and video, but have not had the free time. I suspect after we submit EaW for gold mastering, there will be time for writing and posting. Joe B

Hi Mike! Yes, I can verify that Mike is very busy -- he works down the hall and around the corner from me and is always busily coding whenever I pass by. Thought I'd post a brief update on how things are going... they are going great! We are coding the last of the new elements. We are balancing and polishing as well. This stage of production is both the most intense and most fun part of project development. For those of you that are in to moding games, don't worry. EaW is the most modable game I've ever worked on. By far. For those that aren't in to moding, these next months are dedicated to making the game the most polished and balanced possible. Joe B