Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - Standalone => Fate of the Galaxy => Topic started by: brandx0 on June 18, 2008, 06:48:20 pm
-
Now we've got some content on there, come see it Here (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Fate_of_the_Galaxy)
-
Keeps getting better and better :rolleyes:
-
Looks very nice, good start!
-
Not bad. Are you guys going to make the actual Battle of Endor?
-
Something I've noticed.
Rebel fighters are LESS manueverable, but MORE durable than Imp fighters, but Rebel capital ships are MORE manueverable, and LESS durable than Imp capital ships, usually, anyway.
-
and?
-
Yeah, that's pretty much what the article says, though as mentioned in the article, Rebel Capships will vary considerably in their characteristics, due to their multi-national origins and often homebrewed designs
-
Just making a point. Usually military organizations will have one main modus operandi, like hitting the enemy hard and fast, or bulldozing them, and their ships and vehicles will all generally have similar specs. But the Imps and Rebs have varying ship specifications. Although, if you think about it resource wise, it makes a lot of sense.
-
The mon calamari cruiser is thought to be more powerful than a star destroyer, isn't it?
At least in EAW.
-
No idea, but I had no problems taking down Mon Calamari's as long as I approached them from the rear. And Homeworld tactics work fine in EAW too.
-
What are some of those tactics?
I never really moved my ships in battle in EAW. For some reason whenever I moved them in battle it made them stop shooting. :doubt:
-
Mon Cals are better than ISDs in EaW, given face-to-face confrontation without the TIE bombers. (Mainly due to power to shields)
However, whichever is behind the other will win in another other case.
Yr, you can use flanking maneuvers in EaW, just not very well since the ships are real slow. Corellian Gunboats are real fun to have circling ISDs though :P
-
Do ships in EAW fire at the same power when they are moving as they do when they are stationary? and at the same target?
-
I'm pretty sure they do. I've been through all the XML files (tables, if you will), and there's nothing to suggest that they would fire weaker shots while moving. They might "opportunity fire" at random targets in range though...
-
As for the research I've done, the MonCal Cruisers have less weaponry and weaker shields than ISDs, but their shields recharge at a faster rate.
-
please don't reference EaW... a great game, but should not be considered when talking about SW canon.
-
I have always so estimated it that the star destroyer is minimal better then the MC-80.
My inuniverse Resasons:
The Star Destroyer has more weapons. Ingames it has more shild power. It can focus all his weapns at one point. And it is the fastest ship of its size.
My outuniverse Reason:
The Heros (Rebells) are only as good as their opponents. I hate games or movies, in that the hostiles are stuip and weak, meanwhile the Heros are smart and strong. You ask yourself never, if the Heros will survive. This is simply boring.
But the advantage of the star destroyer should be really only at a minimum.
So I suggest that the Mon-Cal should get more Hitpoints (It has a bigger volume) and a higher shild recharge.
With good skilled Pilots and an capable commander, it would be possible for an MC-80 to destroy an Star Destroyer.
-
yeah, it always seemed to me that the mon-calamari designs had weaker firepower, but much more durable hull and shields than the ISD. The Mon-Calamari have multiple redundant shield systems and overlaps that give the MonCal Cruisers an incredible durability.
-
Well the skeleton of a Mon Calamari can still apparently skewer a Star Destroyer easily.
-
Actually the moncal hulls are weaker than the Star Destroyers, remember they weren't designed as combat warships, but as mentioned, their shields do recharge much faster
-
Yea, I have the Star Wars technical reference somewhere around, and I do remember that Mon Cals are legitimate threats to ISDs because of their redundant shield generators (and fire-linked weapon banks, iirc).
-
One of the things that we should ponder is that we haven't seen that many capships go down in the movies.
There was the ion cannoned Imperial, the Super-lasered reb. ships and the Executor running into the 2nd Death Star. We never really saw capships pound each other into oblivion.
What should be done, IMHO is to do away with the "magic, spontaneous explosion" that occurs to a ship that was continuously hit in the antenna arrays. Capships should be gutted, mangled and given horrible scars, but they should still be in one piece most of the time. A single piece full of holes, streaming air and debris but one piece never the less.
Star Wars space warfare has always been like naval warfare in World War II with the fighters standing in for planes and capships for ships. In this analogue Mon Cal ships are cruisers: good speed, firepower and armor. Star Destroyers are battleships with massive armor and firepower but they are slower and more ponderous.
Keep in mind though that there never were clear demarcation lines to these classes, and the classes were concepts onto themselves with different naval roles in mind. Yes, there were cruisers that could go toe-to-toe with some battleships, and there were lighter battleships that were faster.
As you get to heavier ships, they show and increasing tendency to just keep on floating and going even when the ship is so much wreckage. Battleships were often sunk by their own men to keep them out of enemy hands rather than battle damage.
The one ship in SW canon that would show this tenacity is the Star Destroyer. Remember, that the Republic had a lot of these because they were captured rather than destroyed in the Civil War.
Even in the X-Wing books Star Destroyers are more often lamed or crippled than destroyed.
-
One of the things that we should ponder is that we haven't seen that many capships go down in the movies.
There was the ion cannoned Imperial, the Super-lasered reb. ships and the Executor running into the 2nd Death Star. We never really saw capships pound each other into oblivion.
then you should rewatch rotj... a ISD is wasted by linked fire from a mon cal in the background... its the scene where you watch through a window at the SSD in the foreground with ackbar who is saying "concentrate all firepower on that superstardestroyer!"
and of course in the beginning of rots we see capital ship battle
-
I don't remember ever seeing one science fiction fantasy where ships are gutted apart in battle rather than simply exploding in a massive fireball once their hull integrity was compromised.
The SSD crashing into the death star 2 really pissed me off in that, because it only took the tip of the nose of the SSD to run into the Death Star before the whole thing exploded without a trace left.
-
However, it would be interesting to see capital ships go down in several different manners, instead of always the same. What if, the debris was essentially the whole ship, with large hunks missing, and completely mangled and powerless? Or maybe rocking a certain subsystem out of commission when the ship is already barely hanging on just finishes it off and it immediately goes up in flames? That way, even though fighters normally aren't going to be scratching the hulls of these ships, they could still help finish them off with well placed concentrated fire. It would nice to see how many ways a capital ship could die.
-
Actually, EAW was something like that. ISDs, when destroyed, slowly broke apart. It was nice to watch. After watching my ISD break apart, I went and mobbed a Mon-Cal with Victorys just to see it burn.
-
Actually, EAW was something like that. ISDs, when destroyed, slowly broke apart. It was nice to watch. After watching my ISD break apart, I went and mobbed a Mon-Cal with Victorys just to see it burn.
I love how in EAW you get to literally blow pieces off of large ships as their hard points lost integrity. The space battles in that game have the be the coolest one's i've seen in a very long time.
-
I love how in EAW you get to literally blow pieces off of large ships as their hard points lost integrity. The space battles in that game have the be the coolest one's i've seen in a very long time.
I thought so too. Graphically, they are still the best. Although, I realised soon that there was no real space combat. Its just land combat with a space background and multiple layers. You couldn't move in 3-D. If they could, then my life would be complete.
-
There's always Warlords :)
-
There's always Warlords :)
Yea, but I never reallly could get it to work properly.
... Or at all.
-
Is the breaking down effect possible in SCP?
-
I wonder. I mean submodels can be destroyed, maybe if you built up the ship out of a bunch of submodels, but in doing so you'd hit the submodel cap pretty quickly
-
Like the Boadicea?
-
I dunno how that was done really. Isn't it hardcoded somewhere? I read that when you put a bodicea in a mission and destroy it then it auto-spawns an Iceni
-
It was an Iceni with excrement (asteroids) chucked on top of it as submodels. Then you kill the submodels, revealing the Iceni underneath. I believe using this effect it would be possible to disintegrate Star Destroyers, but of course that would entail a lot of work.
-
The Bodicea is like only 3 models glued together; two halves of the asteroid and the Iceni itself.
I suppose you could make it break up in half, that way you would only need 2 models.
-
It's possible, Maybe we'll look into it.
-
Actually the moncal hulls are weaker than the Star Destroyers, remember they weren't designed as combat warships, but as mentioned, their shields do recharge much faster
That with the passenger liners is such a thing... The Mon Cal build the MC80-Cruisers long time after the Battle of Endor too. I find the thought peculiar that they build passenger liners at the new republic era to reequip them afterwards to warships.
I would suggest that the MC-80 has more hitpoints, than the Imperial-I, however, weaker than Imperial-II and Tector. The Imperial-II has a reinforced hull according to Wookieepedia. And with the Tector which should serve as a pure combat warship this would be also to be accepted.
-
I still don't see any reason why the MC80, a passenger liner, should have a stronger hull than any ISD. As mentioned, their strength will be in their shielding.
-
Iirc the MC-80 line were built as line cruisers, and aren't converted civilian ships.
-
I still don't see any reason why the MC80, a passenger liner, should have a stronger hull than any ISD.
There would be the bigger volume of these ships. Only the outside hull does not put out also the whole Hitpoints.
Then would still be there that only the first MC-80 in the service of the rebellion converted passenger liners might be. Mon cal was liberated before Endor (And it probably become the first target of the Death Star II.), and might have built there already some real warships.
At least the Imperial-I is over twenty years old. And the ISD-II is rather an Up-to-date warship.
But these are only my proposals. You must not be directed afterwards. ^^
-
There were many variants of the MC80 series. The first MC80s were unique in design, required constant care from the Mon Cal engineers, and were originally built as luxury ships. Only after the BoE did the Mon Cal start cranking out real warships for the New Republic. Those were likely much tougher at the hull level while still maintaining their shield strength.
-
There were many variants of the MC80 series. The first MC80s were unique in design, required constant care from the Mon Cal engineers, and were originally built as luxury ships. Only after the BoE did the Mon Cal start cranking out real warships for the New Republic. Those were likely much tougher at the hull level while still maintaining their shield strength.
yup, then you started getting specialized warships like the Mon Remonda MC-80b and eventually (although i havent seen them outside comics) MC-90 Mon-Cal cruisers.
-
Also, it's possible to have more hit-points, or damage boxes for the SFB/SFC fans, but poorer armor, so that you could take more hits, if those hits didn't do more damage per.
-
SFB? SFC?
-
Sorry, the Starfleet Battles boardgame from the Amarillo Design Bureau, and the Starfleet Command game series for Windows PC.
-
I'm not really sure how that affects us then...