Jump to content

igorimp

Members
  • Posts

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

Legacy Profile Fields

  • INTERESTS
    All things Star Wars, all things war and all things evil (but generally, the combination of the three)
  • LOCATION
    In a shuttle scattered across 7 sectors.

igorimp's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. This is what I wrote in for other information: Occupation: Loitering for a while. Builds warships at free time as a hobby. Interests: All things Star Wars, all things war and all things evil (but generally, the combination of the three)
  2. Sorry! But, after watching the first three episodes, you understand if I wasn't too thrilled about wasting huge amounts of materials for a Death 'Destroy-with-one-torpeado-shot' Star. Seriously, I rather build ISD-II's. A fleet of them instead of that one big ball because the Destroy System order lowers your loyalty throughout the galaxy by some 10 %. Ouch.
  3. That's obviously a programmer's bug. The DS has been made to be Imperial, they didn't see a couple of bored men chaning Death Star ownership. But, seriously, how does it work in Strategy window? Can you control it as if you were an Imperial? And if you destroy a planet, who losses loyalty, Rebels or Imperials?
  4. Here's a new one, at least for me... When you try to send a Death Star to a system where there is already one Death Star, your droid says something like: "The gravitational effects prevent us from sending another Death Star to that system." I was shocked because I went through all the sounds with the resource hacker and I don't remeber meeting this one. Needless to say, as evident from the comment, I had a surplus of materials, so I build four DSs. You also can't build a Death Star if their is one already in-system... Nice.
  5. I don't like the whole 'substitute' idea. I mean, the point of the Super Star Destroyer was that it was bigger and more powerful then ANYTHING in the galaxy. The whole point being that the Empire would spend zillions of materials to build the damn thing, while the Rebels would equip a huge fleet for that amount. When you look at it, put 6 Mon Cals and their fighters together and that SSD is history, Bulwark present or not. By matching the SSD, LucasArts just reduced the Imperial achivement to mere ordinary. Thank god they didn't try to match the Death Star (with a 'Life' Star)... otherwise we'd be having some very strange battles...
  6. That's a great idea! It can also be used very deviously. Let say you build a single Lancer Frigate at about day 300, rename it Lancer Frigate 23 and parade across enemy space. The Rebel thinks you've got lots of them and ignores building fighters to build more Bulk Cruisers - when, in fact, what you did build are 8 Imperial Star Destroyers that easily take their Bulks to pieces... Now, THAT'S just plain evil!
  7. Just was thinking the other day - how would the battle of Endor look like in Rebellion? First of, planet Endor has about 10 Advanced Shipyards and a Death Star Shield. There are about 12 ground troops - mostly stormtroopers - on the surface. Apart from the 80 % completed Death Star, there is an SSD and some 20 ISDs in orbit. Aboard the SSD, Piett is an admiral and the fleet is full of TIEs. The DS has the Emperor, Vader and Jerrjerrod (Commander). So, before the Rebel fleet arrives in system, Han Solo, Leia and Chewie with a few commandoes start a sabotage mission on the DS shield generator. At the same time, Luke is dispatched to kidnap Vader on the Death Star. This is where it comes apart. In movie, all of this can happen at once. In Rebellion, the battle runs first (Rebels therefore lose because they can't harm the Death Star with it's shield), and then the missions are resolved. As for the missions, Luke gets captured by the 80+ troopers on the Death Star and is brought for the final battle where he gets wounded and captured (he brought no decoys or support). On the surface, the Rebels manage to blow up the shield and go to the nearest Rebel planet... ONLY it's too late. The fleet's been blown up. THE END??
  8. Weird Al songs? Never considered that option. Bulk Cruisers Ugly Girl and the Beer Song sound nice. Also, liked the Fraiser names (Cruiser Niles ). Well, hope Victory Destroyer Vader's Feet doesn't smell. I also have a tendency to name ships according to the system/sector they were build in. It's not really funny, but it could be a very bad thing in multiplayer where my enemy could see a ship named "Made in Bespin". Gives a preatty big hint about shipyards there...
  9. You know that feeling (about day 600+) when you become so dominant that the enemy can't do anything about it... and you build your 23 Imperial Star Destroyer and just can't think of a name for it? Well, I have a very delicate system of naming ships. All big ships get a prefix based on class (by system from TIE fighter) and a serious name (ie. ISD Crusher for an Imperial Star Destroyer). But, after a certain time, I just can't name my freighters and transports any more, so they either get numerical names ("IE-60" - Internet Explorer 6) or get crazy names. So, I was wondering what are your favorite crazy ship names. Here are my inputs: Almost Evil - Carrack Cruiser Twisted Laugh - Victory-II Garbagebox - Escort Carrier Very Evil Lady - Strike Cruiser Clueless - Dreadnaught (very late in the game) Panda Freedom - Calamari Cruiser Mobile Target No. 1 - Bulk Cruiser (late in the game) Bothan's Nose - any old Rebel Space Invader 1 - First in a series of Assault Transports Wookiee Ride Express 1 - First Rebel transport in a series and, of course, when I get bored with that, I just start making movie star named ships (mostly female - they're ships after all) like (transport) TRN Carrie Fisher... That's NOT sick. Is it?
  10. I've been surfing the net in search of an 11-year old game which I'm sure a lot of people will remember: Day of the Tentacle. Some nostalgia made me look for it for download in the abandonware community (after some years, most companies release their games for free public availability so they can be downloaded for free - check out http://www.abandongames.com). What I found out really disturbed me. After so many years, Day of the Tentacle is still firmly locked out. And it's not just that game, LucasArts keeps almost everything they have locked up: most adventure games (Indiana Jones, The Dig, Sam & Max...), the Star Wars titles (yes, even the early '90s X-wing which works only on DOS these days) and, basicly, everything they've made... Couple that with their distrust towards releasing Rebellion's source code and... there you have it! But there is another mention here. The quality of their games have really sunk low. Such classic and original titles as Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, Day of the Tentacle, TIE fighter, Monkey Island... have been replaced by First person shootouts... I have nothing against them, in fact, I love playing Jedi Academy, I just think they did much better games when they were doing original ideas, not just refining trends. If nothing, then Knights of the Old Republic, prove this to be truth - decleared as 'a step in a good direction' by most, is it enough to make the company turn to 'the light side'? I, for one, really think they need new menagement. Btw, LucasArts started to make Sam & Max 2, but they cancelled the project. A bunch of enraged fans started to sign a petition against that decision. Check out http://www.savesamandmax.com for more details!
  11. Yes, unfortunatly, most people think Real-time strategy means that Turn-based is simply outdated. No, it isn't - as Civ 3 proves. It's just that the game manufacturers are afraid to make something that would seem outdated by that concept. As for player having no-control of battle it can work, too. If you've seen Master of Orion 2, it's ground combat is done in the same way: you don't do a thing, once the transports land, you see the colony in background and your troopers charge the enemy. Looks very impressive. Orion 3 was a step backwards. Now, all you see is the entire planet slowly spinning, while you issue general orders for the army (like frontal charge, flank attack, etc.). They added control, but took away any representation of the battle there was. Now, battle's just a series of numbers rolling. I honestly think it was better before...
  12. I've played many, many games (mostly strategy, since I adore them) for the last 10+ years and I can tell you that computer games are honestly getting WORSE! Today, all games seem to be about is graphics. For that reason I've installed a 386 computer with DOS in my room, where I dropped all the 'good, old games' that have greater realism, depth and replayability. I honestly think Master of Orion 1 was some 10 levels ahead of the 3rd; I really think no strategy game today even approaches Master of Magic... and I won't even get into all the mid-1990s games. One thing I loved about Rebellion is that same replay value where you can run the game on and on and discover something new in it in your 74th game... That's why I think Rebellion 2 should make the replay value even better by adding things like: - Standard (SW) galaxy /or/ Random galaxy generated by computer - Much more sides - Ssi-Rukh, neutrals, etc. - instead of just the offered two (+ability to add your own custom race) - A standard set of SW characters + a generator that would allow the computer to just make up a character or two as you go along - More developed 'traitors' allowing characters to really switch sides, not just foil a mission. This would be a gaming disaster; to have Luke switch to the dark side and come after you a moment later. - A ship / ground troops designing option that would allow you to add your own ship. - And, of course, an included editor so we can all tamper with it even more. I don't think anything of this is unreasonable. So would it be too much to ask to just have a little more in-game depth instead of just snappy graphics?
  13. I will be very brief, as Vakundok's counterarguments fail to touch on point. Firstly, I try to state as much known numbers and details as their are. You, on the other hand, pull out counterclaims without even backing them up. Not to mention you seem to stick to little facts, ignoring the more prominent one. But, fine, let's forget all counts we ever made. Let's say the Rebels had 99 Mon Calamari Cruisers on Endor. That makes them superior. Yuppy. Happy now? Like it matters if they had four or tweleve Nebulon B frigates. Each one is (about) five-six times weaker in firepower and shielding to a Star Destroyer. Even Mon Cals being near, but still short of ISD strength. EVEN IF THEY WERE, the Rebels would have to have 22 of them (since you claim their weren't 24 ISD's and the Executor is unimportant anyway), so let say they had 99 of them. Hurra. Your claim of there existing ONLY one academy in the galaxy made ME laugh. A Star Destroyer has a crew of 37'000; there are some 17'000 of them. That means that single academy had to train 629'000'000 people just to crew the Star Destroyer force, not to mention millions of other ships, bases, ground troops... etc. That would mean the Empire had the capability of training some 100 million people yearly (or 2 million weekly) in ONE Academy where training courses (at least the one Han Solo went on before he left the Navy - again, proving that academies do exist) last a year... Man, the building where they have classes should be HUUGGGEEEEE. How many such Academies do Rebels have with their (official and public) membership of 0 planets, since they are in hiding? "How can the destruction of ONE cruiser lower that number by TWO?" The other I was refering to was the Liberty, which was destroyed by the first shot, followed by the second shot which took out the other "unnamed" cruiser. That is why I've lowered the number by two before the fleets engaged. But, since we deducted they had 99 cruisers, this would mean that there are 97 of them now. Still enough. "Yes, basically my mind on the subject is set, and it is not open for such thing like 'adding the fighter compliment of the DS again', after I showed that 1700 Ties were not overwhelmengly superior to 500+ rebel fighters based on the fighter loss count of that period ..." I am sorry, did not see ANYONE providing evidance Death Star had no fighters. The fighter loss count? The same one in Return of the Jedi that gives us a 1.84:1 loss ratio? Which means the Imperials would be matched evenly with the Rebels with just 920 TIEs. Statisticly, these two forces would wipe each out evenly leaving no one behind. Now try adding some 800 TIEs more (since you claim DS had no fighters AT ALL). "And, as I said, you underestimate the importance of tactics. Alexander the Great usually won aginst 1:10 to 1:50 numerical superiority with only very slight technological advance ..." Unfortunatly, you stumbled onto an Alexander fan and a history buff. Alexander the Great had three most important and major battles: 1) Granicus (where he won over an army roughly equal to his, just with more cavalary in it) - was won by staging a massive cavalary attack on the enemy flank, braking their line with little problem and then encircling them to finish them off. 2) Issus (where he faced an army of at least 250'000 with his 42'000) - was won because he had superior knowledge of tactics and the enemy carelessly attacked him in a canyon where his numerical ability didn't enter play. In addition, a cavalary charge on the center scared the s*** out of the Persian king, Darius, who fled the field. Discouraged by his escape, his army started to reatreat and the battle was won. The majority of the Persian losses took place during the retreat from the battlefield. 3) Gaugamela (simular odds as at Issus) was the closest to Endor as these battles got, since they fought on even ground. After the battle begun, it went more or less the same way as Issus with Darius retreating. Now I'm sure Endor would have ended like Gaugamela had Executor turned it's back and got the hell out of there. Here are also the list of reasons the Macedonian troops were fighting Persian enemies with ease: 1) Macedonian troops were far better trained and equipped then their enemies thanks to the many military reforms done by Alexander's father, Philip. 2) Macedonian phalanx, their main formation, was equipped with the sarissa (long lance) which made them the most dangerous troops on the battlefield until the appearance of the more verstile Roman Legion which had far better mobility. 3) Macedonian shock cavalry, used at the begining of any battle, had been trained for years and had practice fighting natives west. 4) Persian army, although large in numbers, was composed of multinational armies that had poor communications and cooperations. 5) This was intensified by Persian king's ruling, who treated all non-Persians as slaves (in fact, a part of the Persian armies were slaves - fighting because they had to) There are many other reasons why Alexander won against Persia, there are, however, much fewer reasons, why would Ackbar win against the Empire. With all due respect for the Calamari, he's not Alexander... and neither is Piett a cowerdly King Darius III to run from battlefield every time a battle goes badly for him. I know I said I'll be brief, but you touched a few points here you failed to extend. So, let us sum up our latest Endor analysis: - The Rebels had a fleet of 99 Mon Calamari cruisers (2 of which were destroyed) which were all superior to Star Destroyers - The Imperials had the Executor and three Star Destroyers which were afraid to fire on the enemy (since the Empire is well known to show reluctance to fire when that fire could damage other nearby Imperials), not to mention Star Destroyers are very well known for being unable to destroy any ship in the Rebel arsenal - Admiral Ackbar is, in fact, Alexander the Great in disguse with a silly hat - Admiral Piett is, actually, a cowardly Persian king that flees on sight of battle and has dozens of thousands of slaves fighting for him - Rebel volunteer crews are all experts at their field, while academy trained Imperials are a bunch of blind and incompetent idiots - The Rebels had a large number of fighters, but the Imperials had elected not to equip the Death Star with fighters, as it would be unfair to the Rebels Did I miss anything? Don't bother responding, I think I've had enough of having my numbers and evidance countered with claims you yourself fail to provide evidance for. I also have better work to do then fight around a few silly and minor details you grab on to to argue. Thank you and goodbye.
  14. Regarding the Rebel fleet manuevers, the Mon Cal's position mentioned was not my only evidance. What you failed to mentioned, V. is that in the case you stated (the Mon Cal cruiser going past the Executor), the battle is well nearing it's end. In fact, a few moments later, the Executor is destroyed and plunges into the Death Star which would have been impossible from the distance that was displayed at the begining of battle. In fact, you saw the Rebel fleet come out of hyperspace a long way from the Death Star AND the Imperial fleet. After turning, they went back towards the Imp fleet, engaging them and in doing so left the Death Star very far behind (see it's second shot to confirm this - and this was even before they engaged the fleet). Sometime between that scene and the one you mentioned about Mon Cal cruiser being next to the Executor, both fleets somehow TRANSPORTED themselves back to the Death Star. They were so close, in fact, the Executor's crew had no time to regain control of the ship on the auxilary bridge and the ship was pulled in by the Death Star's gravity well. Had they been enough far away from the DS, the Executor would have been pulled by the much stronger Endor's gravity - but this is pure speculation. What is NOT speculation is the FACT that the Executor lost it's bridge and PLUNGED into the Death Star in a time frame of 3-4 seconds - minimal distance if it was pulled at a speed of 10 MGLTs (130 km/h) is about 150 meters. Feel free to increase that number to anyone you like. The distance will still be laughably small. In concession to your thoughts, perhaps the Rebel fleet didn't turn around. Perhaps they moved BACKWARDS. I won't even get to the part of the movie where Ackbar (just after the Executor was destroyed) and after the DS was attacked ordered: "Move the fleet away from the Death Star." Why? If they were so far away since they didn't turn ever since they departed to avoid Death Star's superlaser? As far as heavy weaponary that destroys an ISD in a single shot, I find it very doubtful considering Imperial Star Destroyer's cannons seemed unable to destroy the Falcon even with a few direct shots in TESB. Even X-wings in A New Hope survived a few Death Star's heavy turbolaser direct shots; Endor also shows a few direct shots from Star Destroyers to Rebel ships, none to the effect you described. What we don't know (since the 2-second shot mentioned shows only the Destroyer exploding on that shot) is what the status of the ship was before. It might have it's shields down, it might have had it's hull crippled, it might have been abandoned, rammed, shot at for 15 minutes, damaged by nearby superlaser explosion, the crew might have been having a cup of tea in the galley... well, you get my point. We have no idea what was the status of that ship upon the moment that shows one blast taking it out. Now, I would be the first one to like such weapons to be in Star Wars (like some ultra-heavy ship blasts), but I have never seen a book, novel or manual mentioning something of the kind. The closest to it (except the superlaser) is the quad-heavy turoblaser battery the kind of which Victory-class Destroyers carry a lot. Does that make them super-battleships? You did not comment anything on any of my other points. Does that mean you've changed your mind?
  15. If you are refering to leadership, let me put this point past you: the Emperor was not in command of the Imperial starfleet, it was Admiral Piett (I assume it was the "force without leading" you were refering to). As for your "genious tactic" on side of Rebels, here's what the Rebels did that was BRILIANT: 1) Arriving out of hyperspace, Admiral Ackbar order the fleet to move towards objective 1 (Death Star). 2) Upon learning of the shield generator's status, they suddenly broke into a 180° turn and stopped (mind you) in space to battle enemy starfighters. 3) Upon learning of the Death Star's status when one of their ships was blown up, they dicided to go back the way they came from and engage the enemy fleet from near suicidal range. 4) They then turned around inside the enemy formation and went back towards objective 1 (again). 5) Once the shield was down, they exited that formation and attacked the Death Star. So, to sum up: they went in one direction, turned, stopped, went back the other direction, turned and went back towards their original heading... You call this tactics? I call it "moving your fleet around for begginers tutorial, part I". Apart from entering the enemy formation, Rebels did nothing out of the ordinary. Now, for the Imperial state of action: 1) Blocking out both escape directions, they gathered their fleet to wait for the ambush. 2) Once the enemy fleet came in system, they launched all fighters to keep the fleet tied until the Death Star started picking them out one by one. 3) Once the enemy threatened them by entering their formation, they moved the entire formation forward to push the enemy closer towards the Death Star. Now, I grant you, the Imperials did nothing out of the ordinary too. But, somewhere along the line of that kind of basic level manuvering, the Rebel 6 Calamari cruisers devastated the 24 Star Destroyers. So much for your tactics. I will not repeat the technological superiority you so despise, but I will point you to the following: 1) My Tactical analysis of the battle providing evidance of the number of ships and fighter: http://www.geocities.com/imperial_military/endor/analysis.htm 2) Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels (Del Ray Books) providing all needed starship information 3) The Ultimate Guide to the Star Wars Galaxy confirming this 4) The Official Star Wars site also confirming most of this http://www.starwars.com and last, but not the least 5) Absolutely any site on the Internet with starship / starfighter information where you will find the numbers I've given which you have said to be no evidance. As for Home One's manuverability, is it so high that the ship can outmanuver 25 other ships shooting at it at the same time? Perhaps it has some sort of a cloaking device? Or Imperial gunners just plain ain't worth s*** if they can't shoot a ship some 2000 meters long and moving at 10 MGLTs (or 130 km/h) at a distance of some 500 meters, something an avarage hillbilly with a gun is capable of doing. The dual shot you're refering to must be the ion cannon on Hoth. That ship wasn't destroyed, mearly it's weapon systems were off-line for a few moments. In addition, it had no shields at the moment it was hit by the blast, making the disabling much more easier... Again, even if they did have some sort of a "superweapon" capable of destroying ISD's with a single shot, would not a Galactic Empire with some 50'000'000 inhabitated star systems be able to do much more?! Isn't that what the superlaser is all about?! Ups. Caught me there. Of course, since someone pointed out two pages back that most of the Rebellion are defectors from the Empire, wouldn't the same rules apply to them?? The evidance for superior training (unless you regard the previous statement as true) is: The Empire, spanning many millions of systems, has Space and Ground Training Academies throughout the galaxy (as noted by Luke in A New Hope) with the sole purpose of training such men for starship duty. Rebel Alliance on the other hand, relies mainly of volanteers who came to the Rebellion from planets like Tatooine (being a sandy dot in space) and defects from the Empire (trained at the suposebly "incompetent" Academies). If you claim this isn't true, why don't you provide evidance, because I think mine stand to reason. Do yours? As for the Mon Cal destroyed, you are right. That officially lowers our number for the Rebel fleet during fleet engagement from 6 to 4. Congratulations. You just pointed out that it wasn't 6 Rebel cruisers that devastated Imperial fleet of 24 ISD's. IT WAS 4 OF THEM. As for Imperial fleet losses, they are estimations based on what is seen in the movie. You accuse me of not providing evidance for nothing, yet all YOU do is disagree with my propsitions without providing any your evidance. So, basically, you're mind on the subject is set and you are just stating your point to convince others to it. Unfortunately, Lucas and his crew did not take very much care in creating this battle and we are short of evidance for anything. We can argue about this for ages, but at the bottom line I have no proof the Imperials were treated unfairly any more then you have that the Rebels have won fairly. All we have are tons of numbers from manuals and manuals; and more numbers a person can get by counting the ships seen in the movie itself. If you go by that count, the bottom line is that a fleet of 6 Heavy Cruisers with 13 support ships destroyed a fleet of 1 Super Battleship and 24 Heavy Cruisers, all of them with proportionatly large number of fighters. In that the battle was unrealistic. That's the bottom line. I can't help it if you can't see that.

Copyright (c) 1999-2022 by SWRebellion Community - All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters. Star Wars(TM) is a registered trademark of LucasFilm, Ltd. We are not affiliated with LucasFilm or Walt Disney. This is a fan site and online gaming community (non-profit). Powered by Invision Community

×
×
  • Create New...