including a modified Lucifer , 5 Sathanases (or is that Sathanae?)Sounds a bit weird, having many many Shivan big ships like that, but I dunno. Your mission. And don't start this again. At least I don't want another 'What's the plural form of Sathanas?' debate.
Will it work?Why are you asking us? Play it and see for yourself.
I was planning a mission (the last one in the campaign i'm making) and I counted the ships, and there were 60 :eek2: of them, including a modified Lucifer , 5 Sathanases (or is that Sathanae?) ,3 modified Terran cruisers and 45 bombers (:nervous:). I'm using a windows xp with about 3 gigs left. Will it work?
P.s. has anybody made a mission this big? Is there a bit TOO much apocalyptic chaos?
The plural for the Sath is Sathanas Juggernauts. Ignore anyone who tells you differently as that's the only canon pluralisation. :p
It depends, really. Mobius has made huge Battle of Endor-like missions with around four destroyers and about a dozen cruisers and corvettes which are still done very well. However, it is often seen as bad mission design to have too many ships involved at the same time, unless it is well-planned out, which is very hard for an inexperienced FREDder (no offense).
One way to see if it is a well-designed mission is to ask yourself this: Does the player make any difference? You can test this by simply parking your ship far away from the battlefield and watching the fireworks. Without your participation, the enemy ships should win. If the friendlies win 100% of the time without the player participating, then the scale of the battle is way too big and the player is sidelined, which is not good (obviously).
The player isn't always supposed to make the difference. Alpha 1 is oftentimes sent to deal with fighters while the true mechanics of the mission are left to capital ships. The Great Hunt(FS2) is one such mission.
The same principle can be applied to BoE and BoE-ish missions: the player can simply go around killing spacecraft while eliminating hostile warships is up to allied warships. "Yeah but destroying turrets and bombers is what the player is supposed to do to change the outcome of the battle"...no, if proper events can balance everything.
Uhm...
"The player isn't always supposed to make the difference. Alpha 1 is oftentimes sent to deal with fighters while the true mechanics of the mission are left to capital ships. The Great Hunt(FS2) is one such mission.
The same principle can be applied to BoE and BoE-ish missions: the player can simply go around killing spacecraft while eliminating hostile warships is up to allied warships. "Yeah but destroying turrets and bombers is what the player is supposed to do to change the outcome of the battle"...no, if proper events can balance everything."
You absolutely do not use the Greek plurals unless you want to look like a very amateur grammar nazi or simply don't care about being correct.
You absolutely do not use the Greek plurals unless you want to look like a very amateur grammar nazi or simply don't care about being correct.
Karajorma is not amused about my usage of Greek plurals. :(
Help me out here, guys, we all know BoE battles are pointless unless the player is involved.
It's a GAME, Mobius, not a movie. You are supposed to participate.
Normal missions might be impossible to accept. The player might have his/its importance in an indirect way(*cough* INFA m17 *cough*) or something like that. Don't consider a BoE or BoE-ish mission in which the player has a vital importance as something possible.
Either too bad or too good orders can change the outcome of the mission.
Snail: And you should know something about the features I add to make the missions more interesting and less BoE-ish.
That's why the number of spacecraft following Alpha 1's orders must be contained! What do you think, that in a BoE mission the player can give orders to virtually everything?[/b]
Or better, the player will not give orders at all. He/It is not always supposed to be the wing/squadron leader.
The Great Hunt(FS2) is pretty much like a "spectator" mission. Do you find it less fun?
It's not a Battle of Endor mission, is it?
The Shivans will never have civil wars, not according to the Hive Mind TheoryTM.
It's a pseudo-pseudo-BoE-ish mission. We were talking about "spectator" missions in general, anyway.
The Shivans will never have civil wars, not according to the Hive Mind TheoryTM.
More than one hive = civil war going for THOUSANDS of years...nah.
'the enemy should win without action on the part of the player'.
Yeah. Happened in Star Trek.
"programmed" to follow orders and die.
P L E A S E P L E A S E P L E A S E P L E A S E
do not make this mission. If I could copyright it, I would.
don't take it as a fact just because you like it a lot Mobius, you guys like to make a storm in a glass of water but it's good to increase post counts :D ;7 :lol:
Yes, Mobius, you can do your mission, as long as you promise not to put a Terran secret weapon( :cool:) in it. You'll find out when my campaign's done.
Please, someone help me out here! How come every time I get into some discussion everybody gangs up on some stupid gastropod with a shell in the corner?A little late than never, but I'm frackin' coming back from the Ice Age of Freespace. Battle of Endor missions often end up with the AI taking control of the battle. A simpler, more elegant design piece can achieve the same result if done well. It's not how big the mission is, but how fun it is to play. How you use FRED is more important than how many ships you spawn.
P L E A S E P L E A S E P L E A S E P L E A S E
do not make this mission. If I could copyright it, I would.
Well I started to make a similar mission over 7 years ago. Am I allowed to finish it? Seriously I had the same Shivan civil war idea ages ago. My multi campaign (if I ever get around to finishing it) was supposed to be the intro to that info. Scenario was that the Lucifer fleet from FS1 was one faction and the Sathanas fleet encounter in FS2 was the other. Kind of thinking the Lucifer fleet might be the rebels and the Sathanans were the authorities hunting them. We, like the ancients, just got caught in the middle.
A little late than never, but I'm frackin' coming back from the Ice Age of Freespace. Battle of Endor missions often end up with the AI taking control of the battle. A simpler, more elegant design piece can achieve the same result if done well. It's not how big the mission is, but how fun it is to play. How you use FRED is more important than how many ships you spawn.Yay, Zarathud's back (again)!
Derelict had some fun BoE missions as well, none of which involved "just killing fighters to stay alive".
I like a good BOE now and again, and I think Blue Planet handled them beautifully. Engagements between the Temeraire and Orestes battlegroups and multiple Shivan destroyers were brilliant and gave the player something to do even while dishing out spectacular capital-ship eyecandy.
I love the feeling that the capital ships I'm fighting to protect are effective, lethal weapons platforms, not merely bases for fighters and bombers.
I also think that destroyer-on-destroyer duels, a la Starlancer's last few missions, can be really gripping, particularly if you've got some emotional attachment to the friendly ship and some reason to hate the enemy.
also, since when does one unit save the day every time
only in video games, and ones which are usually criticized for this (think the FPS genre)
Its almost pointless to have ship classes other than carriers.
An Aeolus cruiser with the right angle on its prey can be devastating when attacking at higher difficulty levels. It's a bit vulnerable, so it needs some defense.QuoteIts almost pointless to have ship classes other than carriers.
You have obviously never encountered an Aeolus cruiser on a difficulty level higher than easy.
QuoteIts almost pointless to have ship classes other than carriers.
You have obviously never encountered an Aeolus cruiser on a difficulty level higher than easy.
battuta quoted me correctlyQuoteIts almost pointless to have ship classes other than carriers.
You have obviously never encountered an Aeolus cruiser on a difficulty level higher than easy.
Did you not catch that he was talking about games other than FS2?
He was saying an Aeolus is a viable combatant, as are other FS2 capital ships. His comment about the pointlessness of ships other than carriers was a jab at other space sims.
if two warring factions came into conflict, im sure they would pour as many resources on as they could to win the battleSo you've learned to armchair general from the academy of the RTS rather than studying logistics and tactics from a more traditional military school of thought?
this would result in a large number of capships and pilots
so the game should simulate the feelings of being one pilot among many in a huge chaotic battle
if two warring factions came into conflict, im sure they would pour as many resources on as they could to win the battleSo you've learned to armchair general from the academy of the RTS rather than studying logistics and tactics from a more traditional military school of thought?
this would result in a large number of capships and pilots
so the game should simulate the feelings of being one pilot among many in a huge chaotic battle
From a more realistic modernn perspective like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tactics and logistics make it impossible to simply have one huge battle royale. Or perhaps you would prefer a WWII example where different operational zones resulted in risking a weakness in your front lines from deploying too many troops into one battle zone.
I believe a good game should tell a story, and simulate the action from participating in the story.
if two warring factions came into conflict, im sure they would pour as many resources on as they could to win the battleSo you've learned to armchair general from the academy of the RTS rather than studying logistics and tactics from a more traditional military school of thought?
this would result in a large number of capships and pilots
so the game should simulate the feelings of being one pilot among many in a huge chaotic battle
From a more realistic modernn perspective like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tactics and logistics make it impossible to simply have one huge battle royale. Or perhaps you would prefer a WWII example where different operational zones resulted in risking a weakness in your front lines from deploying too many troops into one battle zone.
I believe a good game should tell a story, and simulate the action from participating in the story.
if you don't believe large scale battles are cannon to FS2, then take another look at the FS2 introWhich portrays (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khIWdolT9xY) the SD Lucifer and a SD Demon destroying a GTD Orion in combat, with one Vasudan capital ship in the background? Not very BIG at all. The only large fleet is at the end with a GVD Hatshepsut, GVCv Sobek and 2 GVC Mentus escorting the GTVA Colossus past the Orion's wreckage? That's the main fleet in FS2.
the reason we lack large scale battles in these conflicts is because of something called guerilla warfareNot obvious. The factions engage each other directly in FS2, but not with all of their fleet capacity. The use of fighters/bombers is significant, but the heavy weight capital ships are used sparingly (except for the illusion of the immense Shivan fleet, but it's only a model, er, ...bitmap).
the enemy knows we are smaller force, an chooses not to engage us directly
obviously, this is not the approach of canon factions in FS2, aside from convoy raiding
the only reason it wasnt like this in-game is because then game would crashYou're wrong. The engine's capabilities in FS2 were limited more than required by the technology of the day. Scalability was built-in, and the design decision was made to wanted to keep the same feel as FreeSpace (but with bigger stuff) and to make missions easier to design and fully playtest -- rather than just tossing in ships for that super chaotic battle.
again watch the FS2 introWhy? It doesn't prove your point, plus I have the benefit of visiting the Volition offices before the release of FreeSpace 2 (where I had to sign a NDA after seeing the beam weapons/nebula effects, unfortunately). Plus, I wrote the article condemning Battle of Endor missions after discussing their problems with various designers...including those at Volition.
not to mention, you must have a very biased view of RTS, as flanking actions, and strategic use of each units abilities as well as effective logistical management are the key to any moderately recent game in that genrePuppies are bull****. Once you've ever tried simulating a wargame set in Napoleonics or Civil War, you'd recognize how little real and simplified strategy exists in a RTS. RTS may be fun, but don't deceive yourself that they're anything other than light on strategy.
if you don't believe large scale battles are cannon to FS2, then take another look at the FS2 introWhich portrays (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khIWdolT9xY) the SD Lucifer and a SD Demon destroying a GTD Orion in combat, with one Vasudan capital ship in the background? Not very BIG at all. The only large fleet is at the end with a GVD Hatshepsut, GVCv Sobek and 2 GVC Mentus escorting the GTVA Colossus past the Orion's wreckage? That's the main fleet in FS2.the reason we lack large scale battles in these conflicts is because of something called guerilla warfareNot obvious. The factions engage each other directly in FS2, but not with all of their fleet capacity. The use of fighters/bombers is significant, but the heavy weight capital ships are used sparingly (except for the illusion of the immense Shivan fleet, but it's only a model, er, ...bitmap).
the enemy knows we are smaller force, an chooses not to engage us directly
obviously, this is not the approach of canon factions in FS2, aside from convoy raidingthe only reason it wasnt like this in-game is because then game would crashYou're wrong. The engine's capabilities in FS2 were limited more than required by the technology of the day. Scalability was built-in, and the design decision was made to wanted to keep the same feel as FreeSpace (but with bigger stuff) and to make missions easier to design and fully playtest -- rather than just tossing in ships for that super chaotic battle.again watch the FS2 introWhy? It doesn't prove your point, plus I have the benefit of visiting the Volition offices before the release of FreeSpace 2 (where I had to sign a NDA after seeing the beam weapons/nebula effects, unfortunately). Plus, I wrote the article condemning Battle of Endor missions after discussing their problems with various designers...including those at Volition.not to mention, you must have a very biased view of RTS, as flanking actions, and strategic use of each units abilities as well as effective logistical management are the key to any moderately recent game in that genrePuppies are bull****. Once you've ever tried simulating a wargame set in Napoleonics or Civil War, you'd recognize how little real and simplified strategy exists in a RTS. RTS may be fun, but don't deceive yourself that they're anything other than light on strategy.
Nothing he says violates those. Logistics is easier with a single force then several scattered about. All tactical thought is based on achieving concentration of force.That's incorrect. All tactical thought is about the appropriate use of units to use their full potentialities and achieve victory. You can lose by using too many units, as well as too few. Compare Rumsfeld's view of the US military in the 2003 Iraq War (albeit poorly implemented), with than Powell's view of the US military in 1990 Iraq War. Or to avoid getting off-tanget, let's just use this definition[url=http://:
The United States Army Field Manual 3-0 offers the following definition of tactics: "Tactics – (Department Of Defense) 1. The employment of units in combat. 2. The ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other and/or to the enemy in order to use their full potentialities. (Army) The employment of units in combat. It includes the ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other, the terrain, and the enemy in order to translate potential combat power into victorious battles and engagements. (FM 3-0)."Achieving potential combat power does not equal throwing everything you have at a battle.
I suppose, if you counted out capships and support personnel, you could call FS warfare at the squad level. But aside from the gross oversimplification, and the stupidity, of that, that's very clearly not the kind of warfare FS wants to portray.FreeSpace portrays limited battlefield engagements. Only a few ships engage at a time in a mission, rather than having a continuing rolling theatre of war. It's inherently mission based, rather than a continuing battlezone. Several smaller missions can portrary a BIG mission more effectively than one battle royale.
Just to make the tactical comparison bankrupt in full, FS' tactical considerations are different completely. The subspace drive rewrote them. So did the Shivans' total lack of logistical targets.Alternatively, you could argue that the Shivan logistical target was the core supply depots and capitals of their enemies -- the systems of Vasuda and Sol.
The United States Army Field Manual 3-0 offers the following definition of tactics: "Tactics – (Department Of Defense) 1. The employment of units in combat. 2. The ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other and/or to the enemy in order to use their full potentialities. (Army) The employment of units in combat. It includes the ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other, the terrain, and the enemy in order to translate potential combat power into victorious battles and engagements. (FM 3-0)."Achieving potential combat power does not equal throwing everything you have at a battle.
I suppose, if you counted out capships and support personnel, you could call FS warfare at the squad level. But aside from the gross oversimplification, and the stupidity, of that, that's very clearly not the kind of warfare FS wants to portray.FreeSpace portrays limited battlefield engagements. Only a few ships engage at a time in a mission, rather than having a continuing rolling theatre of war. It's inherently mission based, rather than a continuing battlezone. Several smaller missions can portrary a BIG mission more effectively than one battle royale.
Just to make the tactical comparison bankrupt in full, FS' tactical considerations are different completely. The subspace drive rewrote them. So did the Shivans' total lack of logistical targets.Alternatively, you could argue that the Shivan logistical target was the core supply depots and capitals of their enemies -- the systems of Vasuda and Sol.
the FS2 intro portrays 4 destroyers and I believe 10 cruisers, as well as quite a few fighters/bombersCount the capital ships again. At most, there's 10 capital ships on both sides at 1:10 which has the widest angle on the battle. And it appears there's effectively 2 combat zones (fore/background). That battle is entirely separate from the reconstructed GTVA fleet. While there were many fighters/bombers, nobody disputes that fleets in FreeSpace 1 and 2 goes through wings like a sick man uses tissue paper.
engagements in FS2 frequently involve cruisers and/or larger ships, which would contain a crew similar in numbers to that of a battalion (cruiser) or a brigade (corvette)The horror in FreeSpace comes from the fact that the loss of one capital ship meant so many dead, and wings were lost in huge numbers. Counting dead sentients is much different than counting destroyed capital ships. A BIG Battle of Endor mission focuses on the ships involved, not the sentients on those ships.
that's far larger than the largest engagements in Iraq/Afghanistan
So your opinion is automatically better than mine because you wrote an article about it?When your opinion is about the fact of what Volition did or didn't do, I'm not only more informed but more correct. Your opinion can be that the sky is the color green, but then you'd be wrong. :)
I'm not saying that RTS is the epitome of strategy simulation, but it does effectively capture the canon strategy of another video game, FS2How?
in fact, the more I argue this, the less I support big engagements in FS2, because i see how incapable the engine is of simulating the feeling of such a large battleMission accomplished. :yes: I think a limited engagement with a compelling debriefing and follow up mission can create the right feeling and tone more effectively than one big battle, where the scale of what is happening easily gets lost in the fast-paced action.
That's incorrect. All tactical thought is about the appropriate use of units to use their full potentialities and achieve victory. You can lose by using too many units, as well as too few.
FreeSpace portrays limited battlefield engagements. Only a few ships engage at a time in a mission, rather than having a continuing rolling theatre of war. It's inherently mission based, rather than a continuing battlezone. Several smaller missions can portrary a BIG mission more effectively than one battle royale.
Alternatively, you could argue that the Shivan logistical target was the core supply depots and capitals of their enemies -- the systems of Vasuda and Sol.
Regardless of whether specific tactics were invalidated by subspace, subspace (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Subspace) creates as many dangers as opportunities. If you attempted to engage a fleet with everything you had, that risked the enemy fleet warping through subspace elsewhere that would then be completely unprotected. In my mind, those factors mitigate against fully deploying your entire fleet in one massive battle -- because the enemy might leave and strike somewhere else while you mass forces. While the nodes create choke points between each system, subspace travel makes the logistics of getting everyone to the same gate difficult since each fleet (and their supplies) also must travel through the node network.
the FS2 intro portrays 4 destroyers and I believe 10 cruisers, as well as quite a few fighters/bombersCount the capital ships again. At most, there's 10 capital ships on both sides at 1:10 which has the widest angle on the battle. And it appears there's effectively 2 combat zones (fore/background). That battle is entirely separate from the reconstructed GTVA fleet. While there were many fighters/bombers, nobody disputes that fleets in FreeSpace 1 and 2 goes through wings like a sick man uses tissue paper.engagements in FS2 frequently involve cruisers and/or larger ships, which would contain a crew similar in numbers to that of a battalion (cruiser) or a brigade (corvette)The horror in FreeSpace comes from the fact that the loss of one capital ship meant so many dead, and wings were lost in huge numbers. Counting dead sentients is much different than counting destroyed capital ships. A BIG Battle of Endor mission focuses on the ships involved, not the sentients on those ships.
that's far larger than the largest engagements in Iraq/AfghanistanSo your opinion is automatically better than mine because you wrote an article about it?When your opinion is about the fact of what Volition did or didn't do, I'm not only more informed but more correct. Your opinion can be that the sky is the color green, but then you'd be wrong. :)I'm not saying that RTS is the epitome of strategy simulation, but it does effectively capture the canon strategy of another video game, FS2How?in fact, the more I argue this, the less I support big engagements in FS2, because i see how incapable the engine is of simulating the feeling of such a large battleMission accomplished. :yes: I think a limited engagement with a compelling debriefing and follow up mission can create the right feeling and tone more effectively than one big battle, where the scale of what is happening easily gets lost in the fast-paced action.
The thing about large battles, that people have to remember, is that both sides have to commit to them. In order to have a huge battle, you need two sides to send lots of ships to the same place at once. Lots of ships means a lot of potential resources to lose in a single engagement. What sort of battle is happening such that two huge fleets meet at the same space and time?
The thing about large battles, that people have to remember, is that both sides have to commit to them. In order to have a huge battle, you need two sides to send lots of ships to the same place at once. Lots of ships means a lot of potential resources to lose in a single engagement. What sort of battle is happening such that two huge fleets meet at the same space and time?
And in the real military, it's unlikely that two fleets of equal size will want to commit to one another. You don't want a fair fight. You want at least 2 or 3:1 odds so you can beat the crap out of the enemy and walk away in much better shape. If it's the case of the Vasudans commiting a huge fleet to try and save Vasuda then sure. If it's one last ditch attempt to save Capella then sure. But in the average war, you might not have one huge epic battle because that one battle can decide the fate of the whole damn war. And if that's the case, you sure as hell don't want to be on the loosing end.
Thing is, once again the subspace drive messed up the rules, because concentration of force is easy to achieve. If you commit to battle at all, you must be ready to face everything the other guy has very soon, because by rights he can bring in everything he has that quickly. Unless you can give him a compelling reason not to, which is difficult at best (and probably impossible against the Shivans).
One compelling reason is that he knows you're coming. Ships can be tracked through subspace. For example, if a force is counter attacking and they comitt their forces to someplace deep in the system, the other guy can instead send his forces to the local enemy base and destroy it while his defences are elsewhere.