[Commander Zane]

I didn't say anything about changing them, the whole point behind what I said is the Tech Room says one thing but the Tables say otherwise, the thing is, which is correct? As I said before statistically it doesn't have the durability of the bombers that hold the Helios and instead has the speed and manuverability of some of the smaller bombers that hold the Cyclops. It sounds like the Bakha is already fine as it stands with its weapon compatability based purely on the fact that its stats say it would not be suited for lobbing Helios at Destroyers.

It doesn't matter. The fluff has no effect on gameplay. The tables do.

The purpose of the FreeSpace Upgrade Project is to upgrade retail gameplay, not to alter it. Thus the tables cannot be altered to permit the Bakha to carry Helios warheads.

This would alter the balance of all mods built on retail behavior by allowing the Bakha to carry Helios warheads.

Intended behavior is not an issue here. The simple fact is that the actual retail behavior must be maintained to avoid support hell.

I'm now saying this for the third time that I believe the Bakha's Tables make it more suited as a lighter bomber i.e.: NOT HAVING HELIOS COMPABILITY, thus AS IT IS WITHOUT HAVING HELIOS ON THE LIST OF USABLE SECONDARIES IT IS GOOD. STATISTICALLY it has the conditions of say a Zeus which is meant to get in the field quickly, lob some Cyclops at a Cruiser and pop it, and go home, NOT as an anti-Destroyer bomber as the Tech Room implies.

Shall I end up repeating this a fourth time?

[General Battuta]

I'll admit I haven't really been reading your posts, yes. I hope the boilerplate got through to you with respect to why the tables will not be altered by the MediaVPs.

The Bakha can canonically carry Helios warheads and is used as an anti-destroyer bomber. Yet, gameplay-wise, it can't carry the Helios unless forced to by the mission loadout.

There is no way to fluff-wrangle about this. The tables and the fiction stand at odds.

What's your point?

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Based off this this sentence:

The bomber's speed and maneuverability make it the craft of choice for taking out destroyers and corvettes with multiple flak, AAA, and anti-ship beam turrets.

Wouldn't that say that it would normally be meant to hold the Helios? The table stats do lead me to believe that having that capability wouldn't suit it whereas the description says that it probaby would have that capability.

Not really. Bear in mind that ships such as the NTD Uhuru can also fall prey to Cyclops torpedoes, just not as fast.

[Thaeris]

I think the tables as-is work just fine for the retail campaign...

...Now, if you have a mod/work of fiction that doesn't agree with the retail tables, there's nothing from preventing the author with re-writing the tables to "fix" those old errors. The only question is "are the mods reasonable?" Personally, I think you could do A LOT to the Myrmidon and be well recieved for it. For example, I might nix the Helios capability but instead allow the cairrage of the Cyclops under the grounds that fighter's modular configuration allows for the attachment of bomb launchers... or something... Mind you, that would be a fan campaign only.

Also, the GTB Hydra from Derelict is a good example of doing something like this, although they obviously didn't actually change the D.H. itself.

However, here's an idea: You could release a mod which overrides the retail table data with your "fixed" data. Non-invasive, "if you don't like it, can it," everybody's happy...

[Commander Zane]

Not really. Bear in mind that ships such as the NTD Uhuru can also fall prey to Cyclops torpedoes, just not as fast.

Another thing I've said before in the last page.

[General Battuta]

However, here's an idea: You could release a mod which overrides the retail table data with your "fixed" data. Non-invasive, "if you don't like it, can it," everybody's happy...

Read the thread, darn it!

[TrashMan]

Nobody can really agree on what the obvious bits are. Though something like having the Helios in allowed primaries is certainly obvious, moving it to allowed secondaries is something that would be very controversial.

If it's a fighter or a čoght bomber - yes.
If it's a heavy bomber - no.

A little bit of common sense is all that's needed.

And I really don't see support hell. Mods use their own set of tables, and given that it's known what changes, even in a worse case scenario, if you want to fix the balance of the mod, all you have to do it is a 5 minute tweak to the tables. How is this really different from fixing missions in FRED because of a new SCP feature casing problems or messing things up? Not the first or the last time some small changes had to me made.

And that's all assuming the changes would have a huge impact on balance. I played a dozen campaigns with a dozen different tables and the impact has always been minimal, so I don't believe even for a second it would be even nearly as drastic as you claim.

Regardless of how and where these fixes are implemented, what needs fixing and how is what we should be discussing.

I say the Mentu needs it's beam cannon

[The E]

Are you just trolling, or really not seeing the problem?

If a mod wants to alter retail gameplay, that's fine, encouraged, even.
If the MediaVPs do the same, it WILL lead to problems. Because suddenly, you are altering the gameplay of EVERY mod in a way that the mods' creators didn't expect when they made that mod.
So, what is more work? Incorporating changes into your mod, so that it plays just like you want it to play, OR altering the one unified resource most mods use, thus creating the need for modders to go through their own work months, if not years after they've released it to see if it doesn't break?

[General Battuta]

+1 to the E.

If you can't see the havoc that would be caused by retroactively adding beams to every Mentu in every campaign ever FREDded, then you are lost!

[Woolie Wool]

Nobody can really agree on what the obvious bits are. Though something like having the Helios in allowed primaries is certainly obvious, moving it to allowed secondaries is something that would be very controversial.

I'm not sure how controversial it would necessarily be as the Bakha canonically did carry Helios against the SJ Sathanas. Either that or you retcon the Bakhas in Bearbaiting into Sekhmets.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

+1 to the E.

If you can't see the havoc that would be caused by retroactively adding beams to every Mentu in every campaign ever FREDded, then you are lost!

Well, I'm sure escorting the Hinton might be an even bigger issue if this was done.

[General Battuta]

Nobody can really agree on what the obvious bits are. Though something like having the Helios in allowed primaries is certainly obvious, moving it to allowed secondaries is something that would be very controversial.

I'm not sure how controversial it would necessarily be as the Bakha canonically did carry Helios against the SJ Sathanas. Either that or you retcon the Bakhas in Bearbaiting into Sekhmets.

The fluff is irrelevant. The controversy comes from the gameplay side: the Bakha would now be able to carry Helioses in all user-made missions and campaigns.

[TrashMan]

+1 to the E.

If you can't see the havoc that would be caused by retroactively adding beams to every Mentu in every campaign ever FREDded, then you are lost!

Well, I'm sure escorting the Hinton might be an even bigger issue if this was done.

That Mentuu dies in 5 seconds. Is no threat. I should know. I gave a Mentu a 2 SVas'es and finished the mission without problems.
And yeah..optional tables. Everybody wins.

[Fury]

I'm locking this topic, it has become pointless since nobody is actually contributing to original subject but arguing instead.