Currently trying to wrap my head around Fall of the Republic. I remember playing Corey's mods almost a decade ago and they were nowhere near as robust as this. There's a fuckton of new mechanics to the point I feel like I'm relearning the game entirely. Trying to play as CIS but I'm getting my ass kicked.I'm kinda thinking about going back to the original Republic at War just for the classic gameplay of steamrolling everything with a deathstack until you encounter the enemy deathstack. What are some underrated mods for this game? Also, EaW thread I guess.
>>1889256Super hyped for Reven's Revenge. I guess the only underrated mod would be the Stargate one, if that counts.
>>1889256I like all the new mechanics they give me much more goals to reach for than just building up deathstacks.
>>1890185I only learned about it yesterday. The madman is actually already making another expansion mod.If Disney/Petroglyph won't hire him then why doesn't he make his own game at this point?
>>1890406Yea. Corey is currently doing a preview play-through of it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXYUambLlfo&t=3sAlso did a video showcasing some of the features. It's looking great so far.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dfqt7aqoZo
>>1890406>why doesn't he make his own game at this point?because he wants to do star wars and anything original will get C&D'd immediately like the kotor remake. Not the one announced by goyslop inc, the fanmade one in unreal engine that got C&D'd (most likely because the greedy kikes already planned their own goyslopified version)also, the difference between modding a game and making a game is like the difference between old trilogy and nu-wars. Incomprehensibly gargantuan
>>1890721Also, they would have to start from scratch like Vol'Talkes did, and no-one gives a shit about some star wars modders' OC setting unless you make a porn game.
>>1890721>old trilogyBut there are two old trilogies.
Genuinely baffled that the Empire at War devs are still updating the game, fixing bugs and accommodating modders. Wish more developers cared about their old games like this.
>>1890774>original trilogy4-6>saga1-3>nu-wars goyslop by tacobell®7-9
>>1890975I'm pretty sure it was just a one-off updating the exe to run with x64. And it was probably someone higher up seeing Corey's work and having a human soul inside their body.
>>1891004They've been doing it for a while now, actually. The most notable one was the Steam Workshop update a few years ago.
>>1890975It's because Empire at War is still one of Petroglyph's most profitable games.
>>1891087>a few years ago.wouldn't call that "still updating the game, fixing bugs and accommodating modders". Just one-off bringing up to modern standard, which is still far better than what most games get these days
>>1891299they release about one patch a year with the latest one being released a month ago
>>1889256Do you guys know if heroes in eaw provide their buffs to ships if I jump them in after or do they have to be jumped in BEFORE I deploy other ships for those ships to receive their buffs?
>>1892535In vanilla EaW/FoC? Pretty sure it's applied as long as the character is on the battlefield, no matter if at the start or dropped in.
>>1891004Last patch was small but pretty substantial for modders.
>>1890185Same. The Sith Interdictor is one of my favorite ships and I look forward to spamming them. >>1889256It's a steep learning curve but once you figure it out the game is fun as hell. CIS works differently than the Republic, but basically you just just need to invest in different corporations to unlock more planets for them. As far as combat goes it depends on how you want toplay it.
>>1892998>Interdictor For me its the Hammerhead. Such a pretty design. Will be playing Mandos first though.
>>1892998>It's a steep learning curveIt honestly threw me for a loop. It feels so much different than vanilla. I'm impressed by how dynamic and sometimes cinematic galactic conquest feels now. But FUCK ME, man the AI feels way more relentless. I can't even have a minute of peace to move my fleets around and plan my infrastructure. Really wish you could issue move orders while paused but it's probably hard coded into the engine that you can't.
>>1893699What difficulty are you on? I play on normal just to chill after work and it's hard to lose. Not saying that to put you down or anything but it does take time to get gud. It can help to do hit and run attacks, like to kill an enemy shipyard, retreat, then hit them again to whittle the enemy down.
>>1893699you need to master the pause button. It's the only gookclick aspect of the game. Sucks dick but no one bothered to fix it
>>1893706I'm on Captain difficulty which I assume is normal. It just feels like every victory is followed by two setbacks because I'm not quick enough with managing economy and infrastructure before another front is opened up. >It can help to do hit and run attacks, like to kill an enemy shipyard, retreat, then hit them again to whittle the enemy downI've resorted to cheesing it with fighters. Deploy carriers, send in tsunami of fighters at enemy fleet, kill one or two ships, retreat before they reach the carriers, repeat until system is captured.In turn ground battles don't feel anywhere near as tough. I rarely have to break away from the select all into attack move towards enemy base tactic with force sensitives and an unlimited supply of B1s.>>1893742Playing it made me realise how much I take Total War's 0.5x speed for granted.
>>1894111>It just feels like every victory is followed by two setbacks because I'm not quick enough with managing economy and infrastructure before another front is opened up.Have you tried adjusting the game speed? There's separate sliders for tactical ground/space section and for the galactic map section.
>>1893699>I can't even have a minute of peace to move my fleets around and plan my infrastructureUse the pause button and reduce campaign speed. It's unbearable otherwise.>>1894111One thing that might help your fleet micro is using control groups. I found them useless in TW, but in Empire at War they feel essential.EaWX fleet sizes are so massive, and AOTR fleets are so micro-intensive, that you really have to use control groups if you want a chance with them.
>>1894703>One thing that might help your fleet micro is using control groups.This. Probably just my autism but I find the following to work best in space battles:>Group 1 is the main gunline of my fleet (SSD, main capital ships)>Group 2 is my secondary gunline (Capitals if there's an SSD present, heavy cruisers/frigates if main gunline is capital ships)>Group 3 is always my point defense escorts. keep them between my gunline and the enemy fleet>Group 4 is usally support ships like tenders to move them where needed>Group 5 left open for damaged ships that need pulled back. If a Victory's shields go down, assigned it to group 5 and order it to the rear of the map>Group 6 is fighters>Group 7 is interceptors>Group 8 is bombers>Group 9 is 2nd group of bombers >Group 0 is either my vanguard (smallest possible ship that can jump to lightspeed) or my interdictor. Group 0 always jumps in 1st so the rest of the fleet can be positioned as I like
>>1894914Another thing is to pay attention a unit's speed. I wouldn't group a Dreadnought cruiser with 2.5 speed up with a group of ISDs with 3.0 speed. ISDs would be in group 1, Dreadnought(s) would be in group 2. A lot of times I'll wait for the fast ships to engage the enemy and then jump in my slow ships into the line of battle. Move orders are important too. If you have a mass of ships selected and tell them all to move to a point, they'll all move at their own speeds. But if you give them a special move order (don't know the word for it, but where you drag your mouse to make an arrow) they will all move at the speed of the slowest ship. This prevents your fleet from losing cohesion and getting picked off individually.
>>1894916Another trick is to use the map to your advantage >map has a nebula/asteroid field in the center >capital ships will avoid this and go around it>jump your fleet in near this obstacle, opposite side of the enemy fleet >the enemy fleet will generally split up to go around it, dividing their forces>go after whichever half is the weakest>I generally go after whichever side has the fewest escorts so that my bombers are more effective>now that the enemy is split you can mop them up piecemeal
>>1894921As for ground combat, it depends on your faction and playstyle. In general though I've found a few things to be my go-tos:>hold down a chokepoint with infantry and turrets, and sensor nodes while having 4-5 artillery unites behind the lines just bomb everything>go all in on gunships and rush the enemy base to destroy key buildings then mop up enemy units >elephant walk a group of heavy army straight through the map toward the enemy base, preferably unites that can deploy their own infantry >almost always build the command post that spawns medics since they repair both infantry and vehicles. >I don't use hero units that often as I prefer to use them more as markers so I don't lose/forget a fleet/army on the galactic map, but when I do use them it's generally to counter enemy heros. artillery works well for this too though. >something I didn't realize for the longest time was that stealth units can actually attack an occupied planet without engaging the fleet. You can send stealth units in to a weakly held planet and steal it out from under the enemy, then jump a fleet in to mop up the orbitals. Overall though artillery is king, but by lategame I usually just build doomstacks and autocomplete ground battles unless it's a climactic battle or a map I particularly like
>>1890406based and RTSpilled
>>1889256>Still no cracked updated version
>>1894914I do the exact same thing, though I tend to put more of my micro into ship tonnages than fighters in TR.>1 is big tank (SSD or battlecruiser)>2 is capitals>3 is heavy frigates (victory-2s, procursators, etc)>4 is artillery>5 is carriers>6 is small frigates and anti-capital corvettes>7 is point defense>8 is fighters>9 is bombers>0 is interdictors
>>1892535I think they get the bonus regardless of when they are brought in. The most problematic aspect is I don't think their bonus applies to themselves. This is frustrating if a leader is in a super star destroyer since they don't get their own bonus. You'd need to bring in a second leader to boost the SSD.
>>1892998I like the even more ancient Sith/republic designs. I hope we get some smaller scenarios where we can fight the conflict between Naga Sadow and the Old Republic, the Krath, and the forces of Exar Kun.
>>1897148those Sith ships are indeed pretty cool. Seems like they will be some sort of carrier in the game.
>>1897211I also like the Krath Supremacy class attack ship from the same era.
Think we'll see this bad boy in a Thrawn's Revenge update?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Eyqv5V0gs
>>1897486Which faction should they go to?
>>1898725imperial blastboats? rebellion or hapes obviously
>>1897148>>1897211>>1897454The GHW had some fantastic designs, and it's a shame we'll most likely never see a mod centered around it.
>>1890406Not only that, he's planning a 4th expansion mod for the early GCW period covering the OT period.
>>1898877I'm a little hesitant for that one.
>>1898879It's far out enough that I'm withholding judgment, but I'm erring on the side of optimism simply on the quality of TR and FOTR.But I get where you're coming from. EaW just can't really capture an asymmetrical guerilla war well.
>>1898981>EaW just can't really capture an asymmetrical guerilla war well.There's that point you brought up, but I was more concerned with how they would make not make it like be TR, but with steamroller Empire. I feel like their current docket is solid, but this one is out there for me.
>>1898981>EaW just can't really capture an asymmetrical guerilla war wellAOTR does it somewhat decently, and I think they even have a submod which goes even further into the asymmetrical guerilla war aspects. Where EAWX would really struggle is the fact that small ships and fighters can't change the face of a battle in it, instead serving as force multipliers for the big battleships. Asymmetrical guerilla warfare only works if small ships and fighters can actually carry a battle.
>>1899032Small ships kinda work only if you swarm them en mass and have some tenders to help, but yeah they're mostly fodder to protect even my lowly VSD and Bulwark Mk Is.
>>1897486Aren't they already in? I think that the Corporate Sector has them in their fighter roster.
>>1899161The Corporate Sector and all the Imperial factions have them all albeit various models. Eriadu and Maldrood have the oldest variant, Zsinj and the mainline Empire have the middle ground while the PA has the newest version.
>>1889256How does infrastructure work, I'm having to waste all my money on the building that gives +1 and am still in the negative. Do the buildings create infrastructure like money that stockpiles or does it compare to a hidden number like number of planets/2? Are there any other buildings that create it?
>>1900272IIRC the way infrastructure works in the most current version is that it's a measure of how many building slots you have empty over the total amount of slots, from across all your planets. The more you fill all your planets out, the higher your infrastructure score is.
>>1900289Thanks will have to break -35. I guess the galactic history's can record it as the B1s going on strike.
>>1900272It's a measure of all your building slots. Basically, you want to invest in tax agencies, shipyards, and unit producing buildings because it gives you infrastructure. Fundamentally, it's an anti-blobbing mechanic to force you to develop your planets rather than blitz aimlessly.
Want to play Empire at War again, but can't figure out which mod I feel like playing. I've pretty much played every AOTR campaign but Black Sun (which I tend to do poorly in because of its economy), and EaWX feels a bit too easy even with Cruel AI.Any recommendations other than Remake?
>>1901497Maybe try the Stargate mod?
Anyone have tips for ground combat when playing Greater Maldrood/New Republic in Thrawn's revenge? I absolutely adore their ship rosters but I can't for the life of me figure out to win on the ground without heavy attrition. I miss having either a fat tanky boy up front or in the case of NR, having a good aerial harrasser. T4Bs die too easily and losing just one means you lose the entire unit.
>>1902069I don't know much about GM since I only played a few space skirmish matches with them, but from what I've heard their mostly about light vehicle blitzkriegs.For NR, they are essentially a jack of all trades faction, though their best parts are strong infantry mixed with great light vehicles and a strong air unit. T4-B's are moreso an infantry support tank. I would advise bringing some heavy tractors due to their ping ability and some SRV-1's to help out while the jedi heals are on cooldown. Basically try to combine steamrolling with infantry armies and harassment with your lighter vehicles. The AAC-2 is probably one of the best hit and run units in the game if you can micro them, though you can make almost any composition work.One other thing worth noting about NR is their heroes. The jedi ones, Luke in particular, are some of the strongest ground heroes in the mod. For Luke, you can practically build an entire ground army around him. As long as you don't do anything stupid, he's practically unstoppable as long as he gets some support. Most of them are also stealth heroes, so its not unfeasable to use them on their own to take out some backline planets.
>>1901497Republic at War is close to vanilla gameplay, but might be a decent challenge at higher difficulties.
>>1902069>GM GroundMobile repair tractors and A5 Juggernauts will be your friend.
>>1902162>>1902206Thanks, I'll try that. I suck dicks at microing fast ground units and resort to AT-ATs with artillery and dropship support half the time.
>>1902236Pause button is your friend if it gets too hard. Alternatively, you can just get more arty and build for a more steamroll-y infantry build. Jedi healing is much stronger then you'd think.
>>1902069I'm your literal inverse for GM. Hate their ship roster (luv me battlecruisers), love their ground roster.GM is the fast attack faction. My general army comp with them is MAATs, 2-M tanks, repair trucks, swamp speeders, and commandos. Use the commandos and MAATs to take a command point for full army cap, then drop in the armor. Tanks have both shields and armor, so they're fairly durable. Just make sure to send them to the repair trucks when they get low.Once you learn to micro shields and armor, you'll find GM is the most fun faction for taking planets because it's so fast and responsive (particularly makes cleaning up at the end less painful).
>>1902236The landing pad infantry bases help out a lot. Gives me some extra screening infantry and in Zsinj's case, more fire power to back my invasion force. >>1902290I could never get a really big GM navy going since I'm getting bumrushed by everyone from Zsinj to the Hutts. The moment I want to expand further some chuckle fuck wants to take aworld or two from me.
>>1903019>I could never get a really big GM navy going since I'm getting bumrushed by everyone from Zsinj to the HuttsYou want to focus on preserving your economy and creating choke points. Hypervelocity guns can go a long way. In time, your economy will get strong enough to sustain a war machine and you can go on the offensive for real.
This ship is cool. Is it canon or fanfic?
>>1903768It's canon, even in the disneyverse thanks to FFG
>>1903768Is that rebel? I never seen the Empire giving their looks an extra flair.
>>1905217CW era Republic.
>>1903768>what if venator... but beeg
>>1905289Wait until you learn about ISD but beeg and no hangar, or ISD but smaller and bridge growths.
>>1905318ISD is a perfect design so no shit it has plenty of variations, that other ship is just venator with all its design flaws but beeg
>>1905289The entire point is that it was a proto-ISD that got scrapped because it was a poor design. Same reason it almost never appears in games.
>>1905289Anon...
>>1905434Executor is very different from ISDs. And it's based as fuck.
>>1905432All star destroyers are bad designs thoughever
>>1903768The model is made for the mod, but the Maelstrom existed in both Legends and Disney lore as RPG splat material.
>>1905434The Executor is just "what if we took the Star Destroyer and put a whole city on it?".
>>1905471care to elaborate? You don't really get more efficient than ISD arrowhead/sword tip design
>>1905516It is a pretty old set of criticisms:>has an underside and a topside when 3D spacial movement renders such concepts irrelevent>doesn't have directional thrusters>bridge is on the side of the ship on the outside and exposed>gun batteries are also concentrated at the top side and not arround it>no point defense against tiny fightersPlus some people always insist that perfect spheres, oval shapes, or cylinders is the best but the arrowhead shape allows for maximized weapon coverage when those shapes do not but most people are obsessed with mobility designs. Personally I do not care about these kinds of things anymore but some people will still see the Destroyer as essentially a glorified boat.
>>1905564>has an underside and a topside when 3D spacial movement renders such concepts irreleventso where in 3D space do you place a fighter hangar?>doesn't have directional thrustersliterally half of the design is directional thrusters in the back>bridge is on the side of the ship on the outside and exposedvalid point but you could just hide it inside the main hull>gun batteries are also concentrated at the top side and not arround itmajority of batteries are on the top side, but some are on the sides and bottom>no point defense against tiny fightersyou're carrying a ton of fighters to do this job
>>1905566>so where in 3D space do you place a fighter hangar?the republic era ones had them on the sides
>>1905567and its a design flaw that allows 360 degree attack angles. ISDs have hangars on the very bottom in the center precisely to alleviate that flaw
>>1905566>so where in 3D space do you place a fighter hangar?Missile tubes. it is in space so you can just turn off the artificial gravity and just launch them out. Receiving them is more tricky but generally speaking fighters do not need any space to leave the ship. This is ignoring that fighters are not really practical since in space 250,000 kilometers cubed is knife fighting distance and real life fighters would just be replaced with suicide drones aka cruise missiles.>majority of batteries are on the top side, but some are on the sides and bottomThat is still not an even spread. Practically half the ship is incapable of doing anything because it is completely underutilized space for firepower.
>>1905708>underutilized spaceIt's not as bad as it seems. Putting all the guns on top means that they can dish out their entire firepower from one area. Sure, having firing arcs everywhere is good, but you can't get as much of it at once potentially.
>>1905738Anon, arrowhead shapes are sloped meaning you can just stack all that shit without and the firing lines of all the guns will concentrate into a killer death cone. Putting them on an even distribution means they still have their entire firepower available for all their guns in a wide front cone AND they have concentrated firepower to their sides, up, and down. The Destroyer has a massive blindspot a proper arrowhead configuration shouldn't have for full 3D movement.
>>1905516Even in the lore SDs have major problems for two major reasons.1. Bridge is tremendously exposed, completely unnecessarily.2. While the stepped pyramid design theoretically allows multiple turbolaser batteries to focus ahead, in reality star wars combat almost always devolves into broadsiding and SDs are significantly worse at this than their counterparts. While other ships(most notably mon cals) can roll and still maintain at least 50% of their firepower on target while rotating shields, SDs lose huge firepower if they go belly up, on top of revealing the hangar and power generator weakpoints.SDs look cool, iconic even, but they simply don't work very well. The overwhelming majority of star wars designs are tubular vessels(carrack, dreadnought, mon cal etc), which present a slimmer, more compact shield field and more overlapping weapons. SDs also suffer from being all-rounders, devoting huge amounts of space and resources to their stormtrooper and ground assault capabilities which impact their cost, maintenance and space combat efficiency.
>>1905566>so where in 3D space do you place a fighter hangar?I really, really wish more sci-fi used battlestar galactica style launch tubes. Recovery is not so simple, and I hate battlestar's enormous extending pontoons/sponsons. Just imagine the weight and complexity of all those moving parts! Instead, some kind of crossing landing strip system like this would allow ships to just fly into the hull and then catch arrestor hooks/nets/ just stop with repulsorlifts. Horizontal launch tubes mean you can launch a lot of craft very fast and the tubes can have armored doors when not in use.red = launch and landblue = engines
>>1905755Damn I forgor the mspaint
>>1905708>Missile tubes. it is in space so you can just turn off the artificial gravity and just launch them out. Receiving them is more tricky but generally speaking fighters do not need any space to leave the shipalright, but the hangar isn't *just* for launching and receiving fighters, it's also for troop transportation and millenium falcon capturingAT-AT barges won't fit in missile tubes>That is still not an even spread. why do you want an even spread instead of directionally concentrating maximum firepower?>Practically half the ship is incapable of doing anything because it is completely underutilized space for firepower.when you turn the arrow tip towards the enemy, all ship batteries are firing at the target
>>1905754>Bridge is tremendously exposed, completely unnecessarily.true, rule of cool>in reality star wars combat almost always devolves into broadsiding>in realityanon this shit is entirely made up in lucas' mind, in Empire at War you can easily turn all your ships facing toward the enemy. If you have overwhelming numbers, no amount of batteries even in the most efficient spacing will handle the danger
>Finish the CIS historical campaign>Conquer Coruscant, destroy the jedi temple>Anakin, Yoda, Obi-wan all die in the siege>Not sure what will happen, since they are supposed to lose>Fucking Palpatine kills Dooku and the ruling council, and still turns the CIS into the Empire.Ngl, kinda funny
>>1905797>why do you want an even spread instead of directionally concentrating maximum firepower?In this case front forward firepower doesn't change.>when you turn the arrow tip towards the enemy, all ship batteries are firing at the targetNo. When you turn your tip towards the enemy they are moving to your blatantly large blind side or broadsides. Do you not understand this?
>>1905811>No. When you turn your tip towards the enemy they are moving to your blatantly large blind side or broadsides. Do you not understand this?the ISD has a turning capability. Do you not understand this?
>>1905813M8 even in-lore Destroyers get locked into broadside combat all the time because the enemy just stays away from the front and keeps moving. You just cannot wrap your head around this so you default to envisioning stationary targets or oceanic 2D combat.
>>1905815>so you default to envisioning stationary targetsyou're the one constantly implying ISDs are stationary targets that never turn
>>1905862Where is this implied? No really where do you get "move your ship to the blindspot" to mean "the ship is stationary"?
>>1905566Directional thrusters have more then one side with nozzles on them. A common example is the double sided type where you can change from going forward to going backwards with zero turning.
>>1905866>move ship to ISD blindspot and somehow not get annihilated by all the batteries beforehand>ISD turns>you are no longer in blindspotthis isnt rocket science. Are you seriously implying any ship can just play ring around the rosie with the ISD indefinitely?
>>1905815in lore a farmboy with no prior military experience blows up the death star, your argument is dumb
>>1905754>in reality star wars combat almost always devolves into broadsidingThe only SW battle that has ships broadsiding each other is the Battle over Coruscant. There was no broadsiding during Endor, with the only actual close contact being between starfighters.Even the games are mostly two fleets keeping their distance trading blows. Compare that to games like Battlefleet Gothic, where broadsides are the name of the game.
>>1905800At the battle of endor and in the prequels, ships are all amongst each other broadsiding. In the X-wing novels, the best examples of EU combat, everyone is broadsiding like it's 1805. SDs don't have superior speed or maneuverability compared to other capital ships, so they don't get to set up for their ideal bow-on engagement unless the enemy is retreating as seen in episode 4 chasing the tantive IV.>>1906010Here's one broadside shot, and there are several others with mon cals bracketing SDs to the side and one with a mon cal flying less than 200m over an SD. There's a ton of broadsiding in the old EU, and if you choose to ignore that as non-canon, so are the games. We have more incidences of broadsiding in the moves than not.
ISD's aren't actually that slow. In a New Hope, they did keep up with the Millennium Falcon, a notoriously fast ship until it entered hyperspace.
>>1906052>ISDs can keep up with a notoriously unreliable and overboasted scrap freighter guis!
When are they going to update with the Imperial Nebulon B design?
>>1906058god this improves nebulons so much, both aesthetically and practically.
>>1905911>move ship to ISD blindspot and somehow not get annihilated by all the batteries beforehandWorked for Thrawn.>Are you seriously implying any ship can just play ring around the rosie with the ISD indefinitely?Yes and no. Again, the blindspot of the Destroyer is not just the back its entire underside. Since is underdefended you just have to keep the underside facing you and you have rendered pretty much most of its guns worthless. So long as your speed keeps parity or greater then you can pretty much stay there and the ship is helpless against you.
>>1906155>Since is underdefended you just have to keep the underside facing you...the ISD can turn vertically too.>So long as your speed keeps parity or greater then you can pretty much stay there and the ship is helpless against you.and which ship has cannons and weapons powerful enough to pierce through the shields and armor while also being faster than the ISD? What are you going to do about the swarm of TIE fighters and bombers? Are we also going to pretend tractor beam doesn't exist precisely to counter smaller and faster ships? My dude this is some intense theorycrafting but it's based on your headcanon and the ISD being commanded by a drooling toddler. EU descriptions of battles are also not based in logic but in storytelling plot devices, Thrawn is a gary stu who wins everything until he doesn't, so is Wedge when the plot demands it.The only way your theory would work is if the ISD was already engaged with other ships in front of it. But if you have overwhelming numbers, it doesn't matter how many batteries the ISD has and how efficiently spaced they are.
>>1906297>...the ISD can turn vertically too.And so can ships also continue to move, staying under the Destroyer. There is no theory crafting here you simply asked what the flaws of the Destroyer's designs are criticized for and I simply answered. Assuming you are the same Anon.
>>1906297The ISD has an advantage up until its opponent exits its upper bow. If the enemy cap dives down, the ISD must roll, and the attacker can simply continue moving up and down as it approaches forcing the ISD to continuously roll to keep its primary battery on target. Ranges in SW aren't that long and converging speeds are high. As soon as the attacker(assuming something like a mon cal) is broadside on with the ISD it has at least a 60/40 gun advantage. As soon as the attacker passes the ISD, it is never going to recover as it is not going to out-turn any other capitol ship in a reasonable time that matters. And even if it does out-turn, then the attacker just passes it yet again.SDs are a bad design because the stepped wedge only does one thing and it's not an insurmountable advantage. Lorewise SDs are considered terror weapons because that's all they can do, exert imperial power over planets.
>>1906306>And so can ships also continue to move, staying under the Destroyer.and which ship has cannons and weapons powerful enough to pierce through the shields and armor while also being faster than the ISD? What are you going to do about the swarm of TIE fighters and bombers? Are we also going to pretend tractor beam doesn't exist precisely to counter smaller and faster ships?
>>1906323Now you are moving the goalposts and adding things to this white room scenario. Star Destroyers are cool okay and I know it sucks to realize the flaws in the design but it doesn't matter because Star Wars just waves away all the problems of their ship designs with Ayy tech and the Force. Anything else is either tacitly acknowledged and you only ever read about why in books if you are a lore autist but otherwise Star Wars embraces soft sci-fi and should stay that way.
>>1906331except all of these things are inherent features of ISDs, they still have tractor beams in this white room scenario. You're just deflecting because your entire theory is based on your headcanon
>>1906424No Anon, you added the tractor beams. You added 10,000 Tie Fighters. You added an accusation that I treated the Destroyer as stationary. You then went and mentioned vertical turning when you finally realized I wasn't talking about just going left or right ona flat plane. You added shields and armor. You even go so far as to call limited angles of the ship's turrets as headcanon. All this simply because I answered your question and you did not like the answer.You need to cool it.
>>1906526You forgot one key factor, you're an idiot.Sure, you could dive to 'evade' an ISD's weapon envelope and force it to roll but anything large enough to deal meaningful damage is going to be spotted at a such a distance that the ISD could 'pre-roll' before they enter firing range. Not to mention you'll need enough speed to match the ISD's angular velocity, which drastically increases at standoff range.The only way your plan works is if you jump in at close range. At which point you may as well be pulling Holdo maneuvers.
>>1906526>The Imperial I-class Star Destroyer was a model of Imperial-class Star Destroyer in the service of the Imperial Navy. A wedge-shaped capital ship, it bristled with weapons emplacements, assault troops, boarding craft, and TIE fighter series starfighters. In the era of the Galactic Empire, its command bridge was staffed by the finest crewmen in the navy. >The Imperial-class Star Destroyer bristled with weapons emplacements. 60 Taim & Bak XX-9 heavy turbolaser batteries, 60 Borstel NK-7 ion cannons, and ten Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors dotted its whitish gray hull.[1] At the very front of the ship existed the forward pursuit tractor beam array.>By far the heaviest weapons on the ship were the six turbolaser turrets positioned alongside the two ion turrets. With a diameter of 50 meters, each turbolaser was capable of ripping through heavy armor and overloading shields. Although it was difficult to hit small, fast-moving craft, even a glancing blow would destroy them.>On the underside of the very tip of the ISD was the navigational deflector generator.[9] It had heavy shielding[2] strong enough to easily withstand a collision with a GR-75 medium transport with no damage to the hull.>Within its vast belly hangar bays, an Imperial-class Star Destroyer typically carried an impressive complement of troops, consisting of seventy-two TIE fighter series starfighters,[10] eight Lambda-class T-4a shuttles, twenty AT-AT walkers, thirty AT-ST or AT-DP walkers, and fifteen Imperial Troop Transports. >A prominent feature of the Imperial-class was its bridge tower. Located atop the tower were twin deflector shield generator globes and a tractor beam targeting array.I didn't add tractor beams, shields, or TIE Fighters. George Lucas did.You (YOU) are literally cherrypicking facts to support your headcanon. Not me.
>>1906551Both are idiots. Idiot A cannot be bothered to draw what he means and just repeats the same things over and over again inadequately thinking the idiot B will get it. Idiot B doesn't understand that idiot A is talking about something specific to real world space physics with 6DOF style movement not the franchise's own in-universe space physics so the point he is trying to make flies right over his head so he keeps bringing up fluff and lore that doesn't matter to idiot A whatsoever.
>>1906526and I never said "limited angles of the ship's turrets" are your headcanon.Your headcanon is this ridiculous notion that you can play ring around a rosie with an ISD indefinitely and defeat it in a straight up engagement by diving under its hull. When it has plenty of design features to prevent that from happening. And even if it does happen somehow, it has fighters to send after whatever little fucker is there.But in your white room scenario the ISD has none of that and it's also commanded by a drooling toddler that just keeps going in circles.Your "gotcha" is kindergarten recess tier deep.
>>1906596>idiot A is talking about something specific to real world space physics with 6DOF style movement not the franchise's own in-universe space physicsthen you join the idiot crew, because idiot A is either arguing real-life 6DOF space physics, or brings up a bunch of in-universe lore examples >>1906035sorry, you can't have both.
>>1906581>>1906600What design features. Are you talking about the lasers? Even in your own graph from that wiki you can clearly see that the design can be improved by just doubling the Heavy Turbolaser Batteries.
>>1906614tractor beam, shields, TIE fighters. These features.>dive under hullget tractor beam'd and vaporized.>dive under hull and keep goingTIE fighters, shields>dive under hull and keep going, no shields, no tractor beams, no TIE fightersdo an upward sharp turn. Oops, all batteries are now pointing at you
>>1906616>Tractor BeamOnly works in weight class disparity unless you want to bring in the Starhwak Project.>TIE fightersTIE fighters or X-wings is the answer to TIE Fighters. Done, still a straight up battle between two ships. 72 TIE Fighters does not excuse the design flaws when giving criticisms.>shieldsOther ships also have shields you dumb shithead, does not excuse the design flaws of being practically naked underneath.>do an upward sharp turn.Activate thrusters and apply force to produce moving ina circle to match the verticle turn, lmao. It would be better to barrel roll instead of turning the nose tip.The design is still shit.
>>1906631so we're in agreement that there isn't a ship both faster and better armed than the ISD. If they have the guns and the shields and the X-wings, they don't have the speed.Therefore we are also in agreement that keeping under the ISD hull and defeating it this way is a ridiculous notion. Because it will just adjust the arrow tip to face the enemy and unload maximum firepower.
>>1906634See you extend the goalposts and immediately wait for any perceived concession so you can pull the dumbest shit out of your ass and say we are in agreement like the cocksucking faggot that you are. Star Destroyers are slow, the same as every big ship to give fighters the limelight. Sharp turning will only result in those same ships keeping parity with them because the retard on board thought that nobody would notice when he tries to move his ship to face them and will automatically fail as they adjust themselves to match.Again resulting in them still being away from the front and in their blindspot. There is no escaping for a lone Destroyer.
>>1906639>you extend the goalposts and immediately wait for any perceived concession so you can pull the dumbest shit out of your assI literally, and I mean literally, am going just off movies 4-6. Source material is the dumbest shit I'm pulling out of my ass? Check out the beginning of A New Hope, your mind will be blown. Lmao>Star Destroyers are slow, the same as every big ship to give fighters the limelight.the scale difference, the engine size difference and thrust power output difference directly contradict your statement. ISD gave pursuit to both a fast as fuck Tantive IV and Millenium Falcon. Because it has big ass engines with big ass power output. X-Wings can tickle an ISD's bottom shields. Y-Wings are considerably slower than X-wings.>There is no escaping for a lone Destroyer.it doesn't need to escape, it's a Destroyer. And if the enemy numbers are overwhelming, it doesn't matter how many batteries it has and if they are under the hull too.>like the cocksucking faggot that you areand we have an ad hominem encore, roll the credits George. Thanks for the concession.
>>1906645Insults are not ad hominems.>Source material is the dumbest shit I'm pulling out of my ass?10,000 TIE Fighters, courtesy of uranus.>it's a Destroyer.Destroyers are just glorified police. Whooptie fucking doo. Doesn't change any of my criticisms about them being invalid, which you yourself can never actually give an answer for.
>>1906652>Insults are not ad hominems.it is literally the definition of ad hominem>10,000 TIE Fighters, courtesy of uranus.please point out the post where I said it's 10 thousand.>Destroyers are just glorified policethere goes your headcanon again.
Holy shit when two autists with differing opinions meet, it's the most intense back and forth clash ever. It's the closest thing to an internet lightsaber duel
>>1906656Ad hominums are attacks against a person to undermine their argument. I am just insulting you because you tongue the Pajeet special sauce right off the pavement.>please point out the post where I said it's 10 thousand.I don't need too, an exxageration I made the up for effect you never refuted is all I need to know you are full of curry.>there goes your headcanon again.Prove them being planet police is headcanon. That isn't relevant to them having a shit design though, you still have yet to address it.
Honestly, I don't know why you guys are bitching about this. ISD's are perfectly practical and powerful ships. The Empire simply wouldn't have used them if that wasn't the case.
>>1906667>Ad hominums are attacks against a person to undermine their argument.and what is an insult in our discussion, but a pathetic attempt at diverting attention from your asinine headcanon ideas?>I don't need too, an exxageration I made the up for effect you never refuted>>1906581>seventy-two TIE fighter series starfightershere you go my blind dude.>Prove them being planet police is headcanon.pic related, Battle of Endor. Are you going to put on a wig and red nose now and claim space cops are in charge of fighting the entire Rebel Alliance fleet?>>1906672nooo you don't understand, the underside has like no guns at all so it's shit!!11 You can just sit there in the blindspot and ISD is helpless... Taskete Thrawn-kun...
>>1906676>underside has like no gunsCouldn't that be spun into an advantage? Like in that one CW episode where they had the Venator showing its bottom to the CIS fleet. Less stuff at the bottom means less damage taken.
>>1906676I accept your concession.
>ITT
are star destroyers even really warships, they seem more suited towards peacekeeping/occupation forces
>>1905754By sheer amount of turbolasers ISDs are still going to be more comfortable fighting broad sidesw ith rebel capital ships.
>>1906776It's a battleship crossed with an amphibious assault ship that carries its own fighter support. It's basically it's basically canned system wide oppression.
>>1906776They're bad warships, but palpatine ordered 15,000 of them, as a joke.>>1906842They still have a raw mount # advantage, but again, they are poorly placed and their shields are inferior. They can at the best of times fight an early moncal to a stalemate.
>>1906681The big Star Wars ships, I noticed, are very fragile once the shields are down so that would be an advantage minus the hangar.
>>1906681The Venators were basically carriers though, with a dorsal hangar bay. So yes, for them this could work, but in general no, hull damage is incredibly bad in SW, armor isn't really effective unless you look between weapon magnitudes(like blasters being ineffective on AT-ATs). Starfighter laser cannons can damage capital ships, but effectively only matter if targeting an important or exposed subsystem.Turbolasers hitting unshielded hull are going to shred it very quickly in comparison.
>>1906884Then you have the Holder maneuver, which revealed everyone could have had capital sized missiles that can go so fast they turn plaid and cause inconceivably massive shockwaves wiping out whole fleets. Making everyone's struggles look silly and dumb in comparison.
>>1907020If only they had let a woman command earlier they would have figured it out much sooner!
>>1906700you got BTFO'd into the outer rim faggot, stop posting already. God you autists are insufferable
>>1906884>basically carriersThey are considered multirole capital ships. The Republic used them for both carrier and frontline combat, much like Providence's. >in general noWasn't the mentioned as a standard tactic in one of the Thrawn books?
>>1907033you already consneeded, you can stop posting now.
>>1907042RetardIt's hilarious how much people think so little of star destroyers
>>1907042>no uebin
>>1907042Just accept that you lost.
>>1907042>consneededI like this.I'm stealing it.FYI if you want to discuss the worse ship in the SWU look at the rebels posterboy, the X-wing. Bad engine placement, bad weapon placement, exposed systems and a sperg-foil system that only serves to further hamper its ability to do a barrel-roll.
>>1907080If this game is even halfway lore accurate to ship accuracy then most ships do not have a problem with being slow.
>>1907080X-Wings are perfect though. Just like ISD's.
>>1907097They actually are, since the wings can be written off as heat sinks for shooting the blasters.
>>1907097>>1907109The X-wing is far from perfect, ideally you need to swap the thruster/weapon placement. This would give the weapons better convergence and increase its maneuverability notably. It also has the same problem as the ISD, where the opponent can dive and the X-wing pilot will no longer be able to see them underneath that honkingly long nose.
>>1907109Heat does not sink to a vacuum efficiently.
I accept your confetti
>>1907167>It also has the same problem as the ISD, where the opponent can dive and the X-wing pilot will no longer be able to see them underneath that honkingly long nose
>>1907182Coolant material is not the vacuum of space either. Better luck next time.
>>1907109>the wings can be written off as heat sinks for shooting the blasters.The superior X-wing...
>>1907410then explain why an s-foil sinks heat better than any other arrangement.
>>1907420Because the entire vessel in space will accumulate heat without dissipitation into the vacuum of space (as you yoursself also pointed out) what you want to do is to control where the heat will build up to first to prevent the people inside from being cooked alive from uniform heat buildup. Heat sinks serves this purpose by redirecting heat buildup into coolant materials.In the case of x-wings, the heat from firing off its weapons accumulates in the "wings" serving as a buffer for the pilot.Very simple stuff.
>>1907431And the heat from the engines....
>>1907432Look Anon, they are flying coffins you deploy and then have anyone alive return to then deal with the damage. Gradual heat buildup in that case is less important to someone who is going to die within 1-3 deployments. If you are going to criticise the design you have to keep in mind what the thing you are criticizing is being used for.
>>1907434Look Anon, they're not flying coffins, they're flying crematoriums. The heat from the engines slow roasts the occupants till their tender meats falls of their bone. You think it's a coincidence the X-wing was designed by a wookie! Think about it, Luke wasn't hearing old man won-ton when he heard a voice telling him to use the force. Watch that scene again, he was running full throttle and R2 had just boosted the engines power even further. It was heat delirium.
>>1907445Nah, this won't work. You just do not have that energy or sincerity.
>>1907445wookies are untrained slave labor, not starfighter designers.
>>1905471nahisd-1/2 and venator are clearly designed for nose on and broadside engagements, and for that, their main guns are done well. nose on and they can all bear on targets. devastator at scarif shows this.the ventral hangar bay and reactor bulb on the isd-1/2 are a good design trade-off, as its heavy guns protect the dorsal side and the ship can orientate itself easily to keep the ventral away from the enemy.
>>1907541Even if that were all true they waste a huge amount of space and displacement for their troop complement. Purpose built warships clobber them.
>>1907431How do you know SW energy management isn't just much more efficient then ours? If a jedi can wield a lightsaber without burning themselves by proximity or if a blaster can shoot without exploding, then maybe a starfighter doesn't need as much heat management systems as you might think. Maybe it just doesn't accumulate heat as much as you would think because they have such advanced tech.
>>1907544In other words.They can be improved with more guns on the underside.
>>1907574Ashuhillybee, my dear beloved darling Anon.It is canonically deepest lore courtesy of the extended universe that the wings of the X-Wing are heat just sinks and atmosphere stabilizers when they have to actually enter space. Otherwise they would be similar to TIE Fighters with bunched up guns and just the thrusters as they are. Which would be an interesting choice since I don't think anyone actually does that with space fighters in sci-fi when given the choice.
>>1907577>my dear beloved darling AnonI love you too.> I don't think anyone actually does that with space fighters in sci-fi when given the choiceA-Wing. I guess those have better heat management then X-Wings then.
>>1907581Actually yes, the A-Wing very likely does have superior heat management since it can bear the brunt of an atmospheric entry by just keeping the tip pointed to the ground.
>>1907574hard sci-fi autists should get the fucking rope and fuck off from star wars threads
It'll be funny if SMG releases a better Clone Wars mod than FoTR in half the time and pulls the rug out from under Corey, who has been fucking around with troons and autism for the past 14+ years
>>1907746>SMGwho?
>>1907746who is this submachine gun? Heckler and koch?
>>1907772>>1907777Steiner Modding Group, the people who make Awakening of The Rebellion
>>1907746>betterIts too different to compare.
>>1907785AOTR is miserable to play though.Not to mention going with the >disney canon
>>1907575I mean maybe? But a portion of their flaw is simply them being incredibly large and unusually shaped which makes their shield generators inefficient regardless. In SW cap ship fights it's a slugfest between who can get the other guys shields down first and mon cals have better shields despite having weaker weaponry.In theory sure you can strap more turbolasers to the underside of an ISD and it wont overtax the power grid because you usually wont be firing both your dorsal and ventral batetteries, but it would still increase the cost and number of crew required which is another problem they have. Despite being powerfulish they are cost inefficient vessels(which is fine if you're making a 1970s hero movie trilogy but is a problem if nerds in 2024 argue about logistics).
>>1907944these double ships are retarded. There are 0 guns on the sides and bottom, wasted space. How are you going to shoot uboats? All you have to do is go under them and they're helpless, what retard designed this?
>>1907949Worcester was designed as an ainti-aircraft cruiser. Her 6 inch main battery could fire radar-guided with proximity fuses at a high speed. It was not in her design to hunt submersibles.
