[Scourge of Ages]

In the course of a war, there will be many battles. Some will be won, some will be lost, but both sides keep coming back.

In the course of a game, there will be many battles. Some will be won, some will be lost because it's supposed to happen, some will be repeated ad infinitum until they are won.

I would like to be able to continue after a failed mission, and face the consequenses of not blowing up X or saving Y. I'd like to be rewarded for keeping wingmates alive. I'd like to see a mission succeed even if I should eject in the middle of it. As has been said before, immersion is the name of the game (aka SWC), and not having the universe revolve around Rogue/Aplha 1 (also previously mentioned) is my definition of immersion.

[brandx0]

Agreed on all counts.  It's something we've discussed and are trying to work around implimenting that

[MI123645]

In IRC, I have brought up the idea (or maybe it was someone else) that with a branching path implemented, the player would have a certain amount of replays or tries to complete the mission. If the player uses all of the replays, the mission moves on as a failure.

The ejection idea may be possible, the game could calculate the chances of each side winning and factor that in as a win or lose for the player.

The wingman idea is also important in my opinion because:

1. The more wingman you have on a mission, the better

2. You form a connection with them thus more immersion

3.

As for universe not revolving around "Alpha/Rogue 1", I totally agree with you. We have ensured that the other characters are going to have major and useful parts with the player and will do so for both Rebel and Imperial campaigns. There will be connections formed and characters fleshed out, contrary to Freespace 2 and possibly the TG games.

[Turambar]

4. Profit

[jr2]

How about, after you eject, the mission plays to the end in 64x time compression?  (But not with the view on.)  Then, the results are shown.  An hour-long battle after you eject would take just under a minute to finish.  (60 mins / 64x time compression, so 60/64=0.9375 mins)

[chief1983]

We could also try to implement a wingmate experience factor, such that wingmates that you keep alive get higher AI, to simulate experience.  But, the biggest problem I see with branching based on a real failure is that almost no one wants to play that path.  We're currently working on ways of disguising the branches a little more carefully though, such as in FF7, when you work your way up to a date with either Aeris, Tifa, or Barret.  (I've never managed to get Barret.)

[MI123645]

I have.



It was wonderful.

[maje]

Something I was thinking was to have the squadron you're assigned to be outfitted for a specific mission role.  For example, Green Squadron is specifically geared for recon/long range scouting, and thus uses Longprobe Y-wings to accomplish this.  Down the line, they may received R-22 Spearheads, and then A-wings.  Blue Squadron might excel in bombing and anti-capship defense and thus starts off with Y-wings, and then gets B-wings later on.

TIE Fighter sort of had the right idea in that the more campaigns you did, the better ships became available for your use.

[Scourge of Ages]

OH! For some reason that reminded me of something else.
You know how in FS2, when you're picking a loadout and you have a certain number of ships and bombs to assign to your squadrons? I noticed that it never really mattered. Sure, sometimes you have to take a weapon of slightly less mass destruction on two of your bombers, but there were always enough Erinyes (or whatever) to go around.
How about implementing ship and ammo shortages?
The rebellion did have a shortage of equipment; they can't always give you half a dozen X-Wings to replace the ones you lost in the boneheaded charge against an SSD. Then there's the torpedo shortage that happened in X-Wing: Starfighters of Adumar.
I want to see some strategy with the assigning of equipment, and more incentive to keep your wingmates alive. I want to try to take out a Frigate with concussion missles and a mixed squad of Y-Wings and Z-95s.
Of course logically this wouldn't often apply to the Empire.

[aRaven]

What just sprang to my mind is that we should have different kinds of warheads with different specifications...for example the torpedos the TIE bomber deploys should be bigger and stronger than the torpedos of an x-wing, cause the tie bomber has a giant pod for warheads!

[chief1983]

Well, as far as what ordnance is used, it's going to be up to whatever canon info we can find to determine that.  And yes, the T/B has a pod, but that doesn't necessarily mean it uses bigger warheads, although it can probably carry more of them if not.

[jr2]

IIRC, you had basically for the most part Proton Torpedoes in various flavors  (Adv., etc).  And, IIRC, the Millennium Falcon had "concussion missiles", which Solo (or Lando) had modified the firing system of to fire at a ridiculous rate if necessary.  This all came from a SW nut friend of mine who had the SW books & games etc.  (Nick L. , you out there?  )  He introduced me to FS when I lived in South Korea.

[brandx0]

In Star Wars, saying "proton torpedo" is like saying "Missile" today.   It'd be a sad sim if every fighter was armed with "Missiles" and "Guns" rather than "AIM-120 AAMRAAM" and "M61A1 gatling gun"  as their weapon loadout.  We're doing our best to dig up as much info as possible on individual models and incorporate them.  The Advanced, heavy rocket etc used in the games is merely a game mechanic.  Anything that was just a game mechanic should not make its way into a sim, which is really what we're attempting to do.

[jr2]

I said they came in different flavors, and I did mention concussion missiles.    I'll dig up some info for you. 

EDIT:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Proton_torpedo

has info on the MGA-1 and the MG7-A torpedoes, the MG7-A was used by the X-Wing vs. the DSI.  Apparently, the MGA-1 is a capship weapon (heavy frigate); there are picures in the article link above.

EDIT2:

Ok, these were enlightening:

http://www.answers.com/topic/weapons-of-star-wars?cat=entertainment

but, especially, this link that I got from the link above:

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-star-wars-ship-mounted-weapons

More info here, but mostly same stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_ship-mounted_weapons#Proton_torpedoes

[maje]

Here's something that I'm curious about.  Storywise, will you have your own unique storyline that intersects with major events that happen during that timeframe, and will you have new major villains to use (Empire At War: Forces of Corruption gave us Tyber Zann, TIE Fighter gave us Grand Admiral Zaarin and Admiral Harkov, X-wing gave us Overlord Ghorin, Shadows of the Empire gave us Prince Xizor, etc.)?

[TopAce]

We will certainly have unique missions, as well as some remakes of old X-wing-style missions. This is inevitable if we consider SW canon while creating our own storyline.

[Phantel]

1. I'd like the original collision damage from FS2 changed ( I've always though about ramming another fighter and receive a 1% hull damage being ridiculous )

2. I'd like to see multiplayer controlled ships ( IE: A pilot and a gunner, or more gunners! XD ). Mostly this feature, it would be really inmersive to have several computers on LAN , dim the lights and fight your way out of trouble with your friends onboard, rather than ( although I love squadron fights! ) having them in other fighters. 

Phantel

[jr2]

Eh, try hitting your afterburners, or going to max speed, before smacking into that other fighter..

[Phantel]

Eh, try hitting your afterburners, or going to max speed, before smacking into that other fighter..

Thanks for the welcome 

Already tried that, it's frustrating the times you must smack a capship to die ^^U

What about multiplayer ships, then?

Phantel

[chief1983]

I've been wanting multiplayer capships for a while.  I think someone was working on something along those lines, but it's still a ways off.  Only time will tell