[Goober5000]

Ff is weird-looking, and Fi isn't unique (it could stand for Fighter, too).

[TopAce]

What's abbreviation Ff should be?

[Fergus]

If we are going to change beam set up on Damocles for campaign, should we first get a sort of 'standardised' version.  So we don't end up with in mission 2 it having something like 6 cannons and only 4 in mine (4).

[NGTM-1R]

Ff was the abbreviation that..well, whoever made Derelict came up with to designate the Sapah-class frigates.

FF is also the real-life designation for frigate, but shrinking the second F makes it fit better with other FS designations, like Fr for freighter or Cv for corvette.

The Iceni's beam configuration has always bugged me. I personally settled on a four BGreen configuration with one to a broadside and two up front. This fits the "pocket destroyer" concept firepower requirement, and gives it good arcs of fire. I can dig out the exact turrets, if you like.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Well I think it should keep the same weapons, just put them in consistent turrets. I don't have time to do it right now, but I'll do something up for my mission after work.

[Aphenicus]

Hmm, Ill give Campaign 3, Mission 5 a go

[karajorma]

Sure

Time to sign off and play some of these missions

[Aphenicus]

karajorma, Ive got a question about Campaign 3....In mission 5, did you want me to have it so the mission ends off with you "downloading new orders"?....if so, I could also do mission 6 after Im finished 5....Because Ive got a few ideas....I can PM you them if you want, or if youve got some ideas youd like to have in, you can let me know by PMing me...which ever.

[karajorma]

GoulMiester was the one behind the plot outline not me (although we did bounce ideas about). It certainly looks like it's meant to be a red-alert mission though but I'll always give the author's last word on their own plots

[Akalabeth Angel]

Suggested Iceni Weapons Loadout

This is the weapons load I'll be using for my mission anyway. It's nearly identical to what we have in FS2, just that it's placed with a little more sense and purpose rather than randomness.  The only difference is +1 Terran Huge, -1 Terran Turret

Turrets:
1]  Terran Huge
2]  BGreen
3]  Piranha
4]  Terran Turret
5]  Terran Turret
6]  Terran Turret
7]  Terran Huge
8]  Terran Turret
9]  Terran Huge
10]  MX-52
11]  Terran Huge
12]  BGreen
13]  Piranha
14]  Terran Turret
15]  BGreen
16]  Terran Turret
17]  Terran Turret
18]  Terran Turret
19]  Terran Huge
20]  MX-52
21]  Standard Flak
22]  Standard Flak
23]  Terran Huge
24]  Terran Huge
25]  Terran Huge

     Basically, BGreens are mounted on either side blister on the head of the ship, the third is mounted on the underside of the tail. Piranhas are on either side of the neck, MX-52s on either side of the tail. Huge Terran Turrets are in the forward blisters, and the smaller turrets. Standard Flak are in the two larger dorsal turrets, and Terran Turrets fill the remaining blisters mounted on either side, one  on underside and a last on the upper tail.

     Anyway, that seems to make the most sense to me in terms of consistency with what we see on other ships, and the original Iceni (in terms of Beam placement + number anyway).
     Hmmn, the dumb ship doesn't even have any AAAf batteries either. oh well. If people decided to add them, I'd probably swap them out for either the side/leg Terran Turrets or the MX-52s (which kinda suck anyway)

EDIT - DOH, it seems you can't change a primary weapon turret to a secondary in Fred alone. Which means that any changes would need to be done in the ships.tbl. Which is pretty dumb because as the Iceni stands normally, there's a Piranha out of a stbd blister, another out of the stbd tail blister, an MX-52 out of the stbd leg turret and the other out of the stbd leg blister (ie, all missiles stbd).
Mega-dumb

[TopAce]

The Iceni's canon weapon loadout is designed for balancing the main campaign missions you meet the Iceni.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by AqueousShadow


huh?

I've finally finished my mission. However, I have not play-tested it yet, but I will do so tomorrow before posting it. I have one last question.

The mission is sort of hard to fail...and since it's a stealth mission, how can I get the player to fail the mission if they, say attack one of the ships, or get too close to one of the fighters? This would complete my mission. Thanks.

There's a distance SEXP that measures the distance between 2 ships/objects IIRC.

[mr.WHO]

OK, I'm taking both missions (7 and 8 from camp.2). I'll star work tomorrow.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
There's a distance SEXP that measures the distance between 2 ships/objects IIRC.

I gave a longer explaination for how to solve that problem on the thread devoted to his mission. I didn't miss the question completely

[Akalabeth Angel]

The Iceni's canon weapon loadout is designed for balancing the main campaign missions you meet the Iceni.

     Designed for balancing the missions? The missiles are all stbd, the flak are all port, the turrets/blisters are a mix of Terran Huge and Terran Turrets, and there seems to be little rhyme or reason as to the actual numbering of the turrets.
     
      Many missions have been balanced using ships with normal weapons loadouts. There are only a few missions where the Iceni actually fires any weapons. Those being the Asteroid bit, and perhaps when they run the blockade. Aside from balancing the ship against the Vasudan Mentu + Sobek in the asteriods, I'm not sure why it would be neccesary as the most unbalancing aspect (the BGreens) can be controlled with Sexps.

[magatsu1]

Edit: deleted so I don't look like an idiot

[GoulMeister]

The iceni sounds really unbalanced, we should decide on a new weapon setup and stick with that.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Doh, I've been working on my mission where Alpha is supposed to escort another wing in disabling a ship. However, the bombers just get their a**es beat down by the target without even scratching it, even though I gave 'em all stilettos, Akhetons and an approach vector with the target clearly in sight. I used Artemis bombers, is this a bad idea? The other thought was to try out Medusas, though I don't think any other bomber would fit the bill.

    Hell, I haven't even beam-freed the target.

     Anyway, is there a trick to trick the AI into doing something you want it to do, instead of just having it chase a ship while it gets blown apart.

[Goober5000]

The AI isn't Alpha 1. You could try Zeuses... the GTVA still uses them, after all.

Sounds like you're trying to disable an Aeolus.  Maybe you could turret-lock certain weapons, or have the AI disarm it before it disables it.  Or you could try good-secondary-time... sometimes the AI won't fire its missiles without it.

[Mongoose]

Singh, I have a question regarding the second campaign, particularly the sixth mission that I'm going to be working on.  Am I correct in understanding that the GTVA has found another node in the nebula that can lead to either Capella or Gamma Draconis, depending on the subspace configuration?  And is this node near the Knossos that the Sathanes are coming through?  I just wanted to make sure that the mission should be in the nebula; things are a little unclear.  Also, is the first subspace mission supposed to take place during the intersystem jump between the nebula and Gamma Draconis?  With the wording, I almost thought it was during an intrasystem jump, which wouldn't make any sense, seeing as how those are almost instantaneous.

One more question .  Do you just want one wing of ships, Alpha wing?  That's the idea I get from the description.  Also, I'm assuming that they wouldn't have access to Erinyes/Kayser technology, but correct me if I'm wrong.