SCP version of FRED 2

I was reading the FAQS and watch all your trailers. I found that if i Use the SCP version of FRED 2 i can create my own missions and campaigns in WC Saga when it's release of course. I was wondering where i can get this program? Is there any place to get for free?

PS. Sorry if this has already been dicussed
 

Tolwyn

Vice Admiral
You can download the newest FRED Build here . Older versions might work with the Saga release, but will generate loads of error messages.
 

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
Will you guys include other ships other than the ones you listed on the website for the prologue campaign for custom FRED missions?
 

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
Oh, cool.

Also, quick question about the Lexington class heavy carrier:

I noticed that you guys listed her as being equipped with 100 fighters and bombers. Compared to other carrier classes, it that a little low of a figure?

I know there hasen't been a canon fighter complement stated for the class, but what actually makes the Lexington a heavy carrier if she has the same number of fighters as a Concordia class?
 

psych

Destroyer of assclowns
They are just merely going by the VS manual, stating it's a heavy carrier afterall (as stated in the timeline). Why don't you ask the boys at Origin instead? :rolleyes:

Or why don't you go ask William Forstchen, it was the Saga Teams's every intention to portay the Lexington class as the new "heavy" (oh no, I used the H word! shame on me! send psych to Captain's Mast!) carriers that were about to come online, as referenced in a conversation between Admiral Bainbridge and Tolwyn concerning the sad state of ConFleet then.

Why don't you protest about why the Bhantkara carrier (of which, if you did a search, you'll find out that the Saga team wanted the Lexington to be its main rival), also a heavy carrier, got the heavy carrier justification as well?

My main point: the reference was to make it blend neatly into the information that was already referenced in previous canon materials.

But since that might not satisfy your activist mindset, think about this. Considering how this was intended to be the 'new' mainstay carrier of the Navy, they went with Blair's comment about carrier complement during the war, "The complement's normally nine or ten." Considering how a squad was 10 fighters, do the math. A Concordia carrier has 96 fighters, not enough to make ten full squads, but the Lexingtons do. So they put it 100, to coincide with Blair's comment.

Any higher, then there will be people like yourself questioning "WHY DID YOU PUT IT ABOVE 100 WHEN WC4 NOVEL CLEARLY SAYS NINETY TO ONE HUNDRED CRAFT TO A CARRIERZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and the pain the Saga team will have to do to respond to the likes of you is more harm then good. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that one of the hardest battles the Saga Team's been doing lately is not to get banned from here.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
psych, maybe Dragon was just asking out of interest? :p. Although I agree with what you said.
 

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
Psych,

I actually agree with most of your points. I was not trying to be an *activist* whatever that might be in this context. I appreciate all the work you guys have done and I am not trying to slight you or this awesome project.

Please understand that me asking about the Carrier's fighter complement was not an attack on the model that you guys built, or the Forstchen sources you have quoted about its role and design. We all know that the WC Armada specifications for this ship are bogus and should pretty much be disregarded. I personally feel that you guys have more accurately hit the spirit of Confed's new Heavy Carrier (nothing wrong with the 'Heavy' designation, it was established many times in the canon, including in the 'Victory Streak' manual). I was simply asking the Saga team as a whole what about the ship makes it 'Heavy'. Is it the fighter complement, armor, mass, weapons loadout, etc...

I am not trying to crusade about the canon of the Wing Commander Universe. My research is for my own better understanding and for the hope that through it, I can help other newbies along the way.

As always I wish you and the team the best and am frothing at the mouth to play the new game.

Best wishes,
Dragon1
 

Sphynx

Commodore
Dragon,

What you asked was a very understandable question. This has just been a... shall we say a point of tension.... in the past. Psych and Viper have put a lot of hard work into the background, and they have done a great job, in my opinion. We seek to honor canon while having enough artistic liscence to tell a specific story, and it is a delicate line to toe, sometimes. Every now and then, we just have to make a decision based on the data we have and our own best guesses. I'm sure you understand how that is.

So, while people may come up with some very good questions (like yours), we may not exactly have all of the answers just yet. Right now, our energies are focused into making the game not only playable, but a phenomenal playing experience. That is our priority one, and other details, like the answer to your question, come secondary (and thus slower) than our main priorities. So, we may be able to answer that. You can always rest assured, though, that we are trying to respect what has been written while putting together a good gaming experience.

My current guesswork it that the Heavy designation may have something to do with higher Marine carrying capacity, greater ability to carry munitions, increased tactical equipment, etc... None of that is necessarily official, it's just the way I think about it. Besides, looking at the Lexington, she sure looks heavy, wouldn't you say? If you wanted, you could look at the difference between modern heavies and their non-heavy counterparts to get an idea of the possibilities in difference.

Anyways, Dragon, thanks for your interest in WC Saga. We certainly appreciate our supporters! We are making this game for the fans, while avoiding making it a fanboy game. We are seeking to capture that essence that made us all gravitate to WC in the first place. Keep up the faith. We are working hard and I trust you will enjoy Saga upon its release.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
We all know that the WC Armada specifications for this ship are bogus and should pretty much be disregarded.
Except that without Armada, the Lexington doesn't exist.

It's great that we can attach the fact that Armada has a heavy carrier in it to various novel references (pre-and-post Armada) that claim the Confederation is building a new class of heavy carriers. I'm all for that. It feels good... but first and foremost, the Lexington-class exists - and was created to be! - the (heavy!) carrier in Wing Commander Armada.

Deciding that you think the name is pretty but that everything else offends you doesn't really make sense... because if you throw out Armada, there's no Lexington at all. Picking and choosing doesn't work - especially, especially, especially in terms of material that originates in a game.
 

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
I agree. I just think for the inception of a new game, a balance might may have to be made between this and the other ships in it. The Lexington was balanced for Armada, but deffinately not for WC3. So if a WC3 type game is to be made, the specs for the Armada Lexington would somehow have to translate over. The concept of the Lexington is established in Armada, thus it cannot be bogus. I admit that I didn't really clarify myself too well. What I really meant to say is that the specs in relationship to other games are bogus. We have seen this before throughout many other Sci-Fi universes. Perhaps an in-universe explanation is that the plans for the Lexington class CV was purposefully wrong to throw off Kilrathi Intelligence, but this may even be too much fact-making on what you guys have said to me repeatedly, we know so little about.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Although, yes, the Saga people should probably be made aware that the specs they have listed for the Lexington-class are wrong.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I went through your capital ships page and made a list of some corrections that should be made, as I am an exceedingly helpful fellow.

"Corvette"
http://web396.xps1.microserver.de/database/d_venture.htm
* Armament is missing "(2) Laser Cannon (fixed forward)", and the classification of the Venture's projectile weapons as missile turrets is incorrect. The Venture is a small craft which carriers individual missiles in the same manner as a fighter - three missile slots.
* Re: Shields and Armor: I'm all for upgrading the 2654 numbers to their 2669 equivalents... but it shouldn't be done thoughtlessly. Claw Marks' 10 cm shields could be 100, 200 or 600 cm of shields in 2669... and the 9/8 cm of armor could be 90/80, 180/160 or 540/480 cm in 2669. A random "1000 / 500" doesn't cut it, though -- that doesn't even maintain the original ratio!

"Destroyer"
http://web396.xps1.microserver.de/database/d_sheffield.htm
* Spacecraft Complement: you properly listed the fighter half-squadron in the paragraph, but not in the actual specifications.
* Armament should include at least one CSM.

"Frigate"
http://web396.xps1.microserver.de/database/d_caernaven.htm
* A 'configurable' length is silly. We get it, the latest generation of TRHes loves the wet navy in space. Y'all lost this argument a long time ago, get over it.
* Armament is missing at least three births for CSMs.

"Heavy Cruiser"
http://web396.xps1.microserver.de/database/d_tallahassee.htm
* Spacecraft Complement: This begs the question: does the Tallahassee-class carry any sort of fighter complement? We know that the TCS Ajax in Wing Commander III did not... and we know that the Dover and the Juneau from False Colors did not. Where does the Tallahassee-class' half squadron come from?
* Armament should include at least one CSM.

"Heavy Carrier"
http://web396.xps1.microserver.de/database/d_lexington.htm
* Length should be 725, not 925.
* Speed should be 50, not 120.
* Armament is missing "(10) Flak Cannon"
* Re: Shields and Armor: VoW certainly lists ships 'actual' armor instead of their armor equivalents. That said, you should convert that up to Tungsten if you're too embarassed by the low Armada numbers - 2400 cm shields / 1800 cm armor.

"Light Carrier"
http://web396.xps1.microserver.de/database/d_ranger.htm
* Armament should include at least one CSM (which you mentioned in the writeup but not in the specs).

"Light Destroyer"
http://web396.xps1.microserver.de/database/d_frawqirg.htm
* Armament is missing at least three births for CSMs.

General comment, though: You should edit all of this for word usage. Phrases like "much more than a match" sound awkward in this type of document... and repeating things like "war chest" doubly so. It's esoteric once, and annoying after that.
 

Viper61

Spaceman
Corvette
Yes, the corvette has been upgraded beyond that of the WC1 corvette. No, the upgrade in shields or armor is not a reasonable ratio to the original Venture, but who says it has to be? From the write-up, the Venture is pretty much a totally different ship, the overall frame just remained the same. Why does a ship that is stated to have changed significantly from its previous incarnation have to match some ratio of its former self? If we just said "here's a Venture!" and presented a ship with no outward changes to its design or function then yeah, I'd have to agree that its probably more likely to have a perfect ratio to what came before. This is not the case.
As for the armament, see above comments and the picture of the corvette on the page. It no longer retains the fixed forward laser cannons and (though you can't see it in that pic, I think you can in other shots of the corvette that have been released) the missile turret is on the bottom (it doesn't launch missiles in a fighter fashion anymore). Upgraded inside and out, a ghost of its former self, ie we didn't feel it had to correspond to a preset ratio of upgrading. On a functional note, we wanted its defensive stats to be roughly equivalent to a Kilrathi Corvette of WC3, as the upgraded Venture is no match offensively.

Destroyer
Spacecraft complement should be the half squadron listed in the write-up. It should also include a CSM reference, but a more generic "tech sheet" reference than what is going into the tech database went onto the webpage. The CSM ref is really not needed to know its a ship of the line and its function in the game/universe (though technically, none of the stats are, but oh well).

Frigate
Since we have a member who loves the WC4N reference that speaks of the Caernaven as a dinky little ship (where its described as "no warship that small had enough cargo space to make a pirate raid profitable") before Blair takes into account the fighter maintenance issues, we figured the "configurable up to 620m" seemed a good way to encompass this reference (mentioned later in the write-up) instead of ignoring it. I even have to admit that a 600+meter ship, almost 4 times as long and much more "bulky" than a transport that is used for the purpose of transporting goods (though, granted a majority of the Frigate is "structure", but your still left with an appoximately 2-300m forward "hold section", which completely discounts the "bridge section" and "Engine section") is inconsistent with the previous reference.
You are correct, the CSM reference is missing.

Heavy Cruiser
Again you are correct, the CSM reference is not there.
I'm pretty sure we are never told the Juneau and the Dover do not carry fighters, its just never mentioned that they do/did (aren't you a "just because we don't see it doesn't mean its not there" kindof guy? :)). I for one also find it hard to wrap my brain around two old cruisers standing up to a new carrier full of fighters (granted, only a portion of them were launched before the flight deck damage) and its four escorts without some fighter support. Anyway, thats neither here nor there.
The WC3N never calls Ajax a cruiser, but a cruiser apparently joins the 3 destroyer novel group (Sheffield, Ajax, Coventry) for the Behemoth protection mission in Loki from Melek's description of the task force (or another destroyer joined up and he's refering to the Coventry as a cruiser). Anyway, as you know, it fouls up on whether Coventry (the only Victory escort carrying a half squadron a fighters) is a destroyer or a cruiser multiple times. In another "here nor there"/personal observation, I don't think the way the destroyer fighter complement is worded in the WC3N locks in stone that the other escorts cannot carry fighters at all (in game, I believe the Sheffield, Coventry and Ajax all have rear "hanger-spaces" but these could just as easily have been for solely shuttles).
Anyway, the main sources for the Tallahassee's half squadron is Colonel Dunlevy's wartime assignment on the cruiser Bainbridge and the cruiser Dominion in the WC4N. Eisen tells us Dunlevy ended the war in cruisers "commanding a half-squadron on the Bainbridge as a major" at the end of the war. While still with Confed, Blair and company are sent to protect the cruiser Dominion, whos half-squadron is then referenced many times. With the Waterloo carrying as many fighters as a light carrier and used as a carrier in ER, it seems that seperating them out into half-squadrons is counterintuitive. Since we have Tallahassee's and not the Manassas-type, Gettysburg class, Concordia-class (the later two again a little strange to seperate their fighter complements into half-squadrons) or any other random type cruiser in Saga, and with the Tallahassee's "uniqueness" in WC3 and especially WC4, the Tally seemed a pretty good candidate to carry the half squadron from the references. Also, it seems that someone agreed in some way that this must be the case as the ships and stations list at the CIC labels the Bainbridge and Dominion as Tallahassee-class.
In retrospect, I probably should have seperated this reference from the main body. I attempted to compose the write-ups in a way that, if Saga was changing the canon stats/abilities for one reason or another, everything "saga-specific" would be in a seperate paragraph. I figured, with enough of them, fans would figure out the scheme sooner or later without having to spell it out. I guess I didn't do a very good job with that entry but I was hoping the other assumption would hold.

Heavy Carrier
Length was supposed to be 725, it changed since the last time I saw it on the page.
Again, in the writeup I forwarded up, I believe I gave the speed as 50kps. It must have fallen through the cracks.
We do not rely very heavily on flak cannons in Saga (they weren't simulated in WC3), so we replaced the flak cannons with laser turrets. Psych always envisioned this as a refit, such as the one Victory apparently received at Torgo before WC3. This change should have been under a "Saga-specific modifier" that never made it to the webpage, but is in the games tech database.
In reference to the armor/shielding, we needed an outward reason that #1 it was called a heavy carrier (the other reasons Sphynx gave to answer Dragon1's question directly could also be true and have been discussed, its just not immediately representative of something "heavy") and #2 it was so damned slow. If the shields where upgraded according to the ratios, it wouldn't even match a light carrier. Upgrade the shields beyond the ratios and do nothing with the armor and you don't get a very interesting tradeoff. Anyway, I believe the armor, shield, and weapons reference in the write-up is in a seperate paragraph, but the "Saga-specific" modifier for the "tech sheet" stats, again, didn't make it to the webpage.

Light Carrier
Again, CSM reference is not there (detect a pattern?).

Light Destroyer
Again, CSM reference is not there.

"Awkward in this type of document"? How so? Seems were telling potential players "what is in relation to what" in Saga/WC universe without pouring over the numbers. Qualitative versus quantitative.
I also don't see how "war chest" is esoteric. I'm willing to bet most people will know exactly what is implied by it even though it is usually a financial term. I didn't mean to use it too often (I guess twice is the limit of annoyance), but trying to find comparable/interesting ways to not write "fleet" or "resources" over and over again is a little boring. I apologize if I have offended anyone's highly developed linguistical pallette :).

C-ya
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Yes, the corvette has been upgraded beyond that of the WC1 corvette. No, the upgrade in shields or armor is not a reasonable ratio to the original Venture, but who says it has to be? From the write-up, the Venture is pretty much a totally different ship, the overall frame just remained the same. Why does a ship that is stated to have changed significantly from its previous incarnation have to match some ratio of its former self? If we just said "here's a Venture!" and presented a ship with no outward changes to its design or function then yeah, I'd have to agree that its probably more likely to have a perfect ratio to what came before. This is not the case.
As for the armament, see above comments and the picture of the corvette on the page. It no longer retains the fixed forward laser cannons and (though you can't see it in that pic, I think you can in other shots of the corvette that have been released) the missile turret is on the bottom (it doesn't launch missiles in a fighter fashion anymore). Upgraded inside and out, a ghost of its former self, ie we didn't feel it had to correspond to a preset ratio of upgrading. On a functional note, we wanted its defensive stats to be roughly equivalent to a Kilrathi Corvette of WC3, as the upgraded Venture is no match offensively.
If you didn't want a Venture-class corvette, why are you using the graphic and name? If you don't like how a ship in Wing Commander works, make your own instead of watering down an existing design.

Since we have a member who loves the WC4N reference that speaks of the Caernaven as a dinky little ship (where its described as "no warship that small had enough cargo space to make a pirate raid profitable") before Blair takes into account the fighter maintenance issues, we figured the "configurable up to 620m" seemed a good way to encompass this reference (mentioned later in the write-up) instead of ignoring it. I even have to admit that a 600+meter ship, almost 4 times as long and much more "bulky" than a transport that is used for the purpose of transporting goods (though, granted a majority of the Frigate is "structure", but your still left with an appoximately 2-300m forward "hold section", which completely discounts the "bridge section" and "Engine section") is inconsistent with the previous reference.
I think the key word here is warship. A transport is not a warship, a frigate is. I wouldn't look at a modern destroyer and assume it could carry as much cargo as a similarly sized barge.

I don't think it's at all possible to divine how much cargo space a ship has based on a picture, especially a ship which is not designed to carry cargo. It's certainly not worth altering an existing specification over.

I'm pretty sure we are never told the Juneau and the Dover do not carry fighters, its just never mentioned that they do/did (aren't you a "just because we don't see it doesn't mean its not there" kindof guy? ). I for one also find it hard to wrap my brain around two old cruisers standing up to a new carrier full of fighters (granted, only a portion of them were launched before the flight deck damage) and its four escorts without some fighter support. Anyway, thats neither here nor there.
You're mistaken regarding the events of False Colors.

The Karga battle group attacks the Landreich and is repelled by Kruger's FRLS Blitzkreig and "every ship in the region". This force fights a running pursuit, destroying three of the escorts (two cruisers and a destroyer) and severly damaging the Karga (knocking out one of the launch bays).

The Dover and the Juneau as a mated pair enter into the story later on, when they spot the Frawqirg jumping into the Vaku System. They move to intercept and disable the light destroyer before the Karga secures from jump space. Karga only manages to launch "a few scouts" before her second bay is disabled in an accident.

The Dover and the Juneau didn't go up against a heavy carrier, four escorts and an entire fighter wing; they went up against a light destroyer and then a damaged carrier.

I'm not really accusing Saga of anything here - I was just interested to know the source. You certainly didn't invent the idea that the Tallahassee-class has a half squadron... fans have been repeating this statistic for quite a while.

The WC3N never calls Ajax a cruiser, but a cruiser apparently joins the 3 destroyer novel group (Sheffield, Ajax, Coventry) for the Behemoth protection mission in Loki from Melek's description of the task force (or another destroyer joined up and he's refering to the Coventry as a cruiser). Anyway, as you know, it fouls up on whether Coventry (the only Victory escort carrying a half squadron a fighters) is a destroyer or a cruiser multiple times. In another "here nor there"/personal observation, I don't think the way the destroyer fighter complement is worded in the WC3N locks in stone that the other escorts cannot carry fighters at all (in game, I believe the Sheffield, Coventry and Ajax all have rear "hanger-spaces" but these could just as easily have been for solely shuttles).
The TCS Coventry is a destroyer, the TCS Ajax is a cruiser - the Wing Commander III game tells us this. The novel does mix up classifications, but in an internal manner: the Coventry is called both a destroyer and a cruiser at points in the book (which is to say, it's not a case of the novel contradicting the game, it's a case of the novel making a mistake within itself).

Regarding fighters, the book claims "Only Coventry carried her own half-wing of fighters".

Anyway, the main sources for the Tallahassee's half squadron is Colonel Dunlevy's wartime assignment on the cruiser Bainbridge and the cruiser Dominion in the WC4N. Eisen tells us Dunlevy ended the war in cruisers "commanding a half-squadron on the Bainbridge as a major" at the end of the war. While still with Confed, Blair and company are sent to protect the cruiser Dominion, whos half-squadron is then referenced many times. With the Waterloo carrying as many fighters as a light carrier and used as a carrier in ER, it seems that seperating them out into half-squadrons is counterintuitive. Since we have Tallahassee's and not the Manassas-type, Gettysburg class, Concordia-class or any other random type cruiser in Saga, and with the Tallahassee's "uniqueness" in WC3 and especially WC4, the Tally seemed a pretty good candidate to carry the half squadron from the references. Also, it seems that someone agreed in some way that this must be the case as the ships and stations list at the CIC labels the Bainbridge and Dominion as Tallahassee-class.
I've certainly been on the record as not agreeing with the 'assumed' classifications on the old ships list for quite a while now. At some point I will develop a new list - if you think it'll help projects like Saga avoid these mistakes, I'll start working sooner than later.

We do not rely very heavily on flak cannons in Saga (they weren't simulated in WC3), so we replaced the flak cannons with laser turrets. Psych always envisioned this as a refit, such as the one Victory apparently received at Torgo before WC3. This change should have been under a "Saga-specific modifier" that never made it to the webpage, but is in the games tech database.
Sarcasm aside, that's actually a shame - dropping flak cannonswas one of the bigger mistakes-for-easier-gameplay that the post-Armada games made. They gave cap ship missions in the earlier games a very unique and appropriate atmosphere that was lacking in the later ones. Still, my personal taste would be to see them listed even if they aren't used - we've have enough incomplete capital ship specifications for the sake of mirroring game mechanics over the years.


In reference to the armor/shielding, we needed an outward reason that #1 it was called a heavy carrier (the other reasons Sphynx gave to answer Dragon1's question directly could also be true and have been discussed, its just not immediately representative of something "heavy") and #2 it was so damned slow. If the shields where upgraded according to the ratios, it wouldn't even match a light carrier. Upgrade the shields beyond the ratios and do nothing with the armor and you don't get a very interesting tradeoff. Anyway, I believe the armor, shield, and weapons reference in the write-up is in a seperate paragraph, but the "Saga-specific" modifier for the "tech sheet" stats, again, didn't make it to the webpage.
If that's your aim you shouldn't have any problem (though I prefer the mass-defines-light/heavy/etc idea)! You can give it isometal armor! 7200/5400 certainly seem to be appropriate numbers if you really want to attach this kind of backstory to the ship.


"Awkward in this type of document"? How so? Seems were telling potential players "what is in relation to what" in Saga/WC universe without pouring over the numbers. Qualitative versus quantitative.
I also don't see how "war chest" is esoteric. I'm willing to bet most people will know exactly what is implied by it even though it is usually a financial term. I didn't mean to use it too often (I guess twice is the limit of annoyance), but trying to find comparable/interesting ways to not write "fleet" or "resources" over and over again is a little boring. I apologize if I have offended anyone's highly developed linguistical pallette .
How so? Well, when I read it, it seemed awkward. There's nothing more to it than that - it's that last level of editing a paper where you read it back to yourself and write AWK in big read letters where it just doesn't flow properly.

But yeah, things like repeating 'war chest' feel bad. It's one of those instances where the first time you hear it you think the author is really clever... and then the second time you know the author thinks he's being clever too, and it just bothers you. It's the whole "I just learned a new word and I want to show it off!" problem.
 

Sphynx

Commodore
Thank you. Your remarks have been thoughtful and thorough, and we are certainly taking them into consideration. It has sparked some good and construtive discussion among us as a team.

On another note, to tell the truth, I would have loved to have included flak cannons, as well. I always thought the FS2 flak and the Armada flak felt rather similar. But, it was one of those decisions we had to make for gameplay (flak cannons made torpedo runs very, very difficult if the flak got anywhere near the torpedos).

To tell the truth, it actually wouldn't be that hard for an individual player to tweak the cap ships so they have flak cannons (I was able to do it correctly on my first try, and anyone who knows me will tell you I'm no programmer). But that's a conversation for another day, after we have made a release. You may want to try it yourself. Like I said, it reminded me of Armada, and it sounds like that was an aspect of the gameplay that you really enjoyed.

As far as the cuiser half-squadron, I don't think I know the source myself (although other members on the team do). I will just say that it adds for playability in the game quite a bit, and thus seems like a good decision to make. Maybe you can steer me in the right direction, but I think there was a cutscene in WC4 that showed a cuiser with a fighterbay. Do you recall that one?

Anyways, we are certainly trying to capture the flavor of WC that drew us all in in the first place.
 

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
In the Fred2 editor, capship turreted weapons can be changed. Will the flak gun be avaliable as a Fred2 weapon option?
 

Sphynx

Commodore
I'm not positive, but I think so. If not, it won't be hard to find someone at HLP who can make it available to you. Can any other team members answer that question for certain?

I will say that in an earlier version of the prologue, we were using Flak Cannons, but that has changed. As far as I know, that option has been left open (and may even be just a part of the SCP build... once again someone more experienced with programming issues could probably answer this for certain).

The point is, one way or another you will be able to get them if you want them. FS2 was made to be easily modifiable, and that is one of the reasons we chose it for the project. While it may be fun to play around with adding flak, I also wanted to mention that the team has put a great deal of effort into making capital ship assaults feel like what they were in WC (only on a much larger scale at times). So, while you may be tempted to tweak it, I'd definately recommend playing the whole way through the way we are constructing it before hand.

I think you're going to like the capital ship action. It's one of my favorite parts.
 

gevatter Lars

Vice Admiral
I think the Flak is still in the TBLs if not just copy it from retail FS into the Saga TBLs and change the weapons in fred.
A problem that I see with just changing the weapon is that we have the actual laser turrets numbers and the flaks would be in addition to them. To add turrets is a complete other matter then just changing the weapons they use.

Beside that FS had some problems concerning the AI.
The pilot AI is mostly harmless while turret AI is a real sniper. For a Longbow or Thunderbold to get out of the turret crossfire is sometimes hard if you aren't in their dead spot.
Torpedos as they don't have an AI are an easy target for the turret AI and will be shot down even with Lasers in no time.
With a flak cannon that has a wide spread it would be even easier..except we reduce the damage so far that it wouldn't harm the torpedos...but then why keeping them?
On the other hand I don't miss them at all. The laserfire...if not directed elsewhere...is mostly heavy enough for a bombingrun to be a hard piece of work and for the pilot AI its allready difficult enough cause they don't be like real persons and seaking the right spot and time to fire torpedos.

Beside these technical problems we where...as said...aiming for the WC3,4 gameplay feeling and it didn't had any flaks.

On a sidenote...when you would take what some books tell you about the armament of ships into a game you won't never be able to make a successful bombing run.
I don't rember it clearly but wasn't it discribed as the Kilrathi carriers had a lot of point defance weapons from the long rand flak to short range mass drivers and anti torpedo missiles?
It requierd a coordinated torpedorun from 4 different directions to get even a torpdo through the defence in the books. Ingame that would be impossible till someone would code a so good wing c3 system (command coordinate controle) that you can order your wing to perform these strikes.

I think games are always a comprimise between what would be interesting and cool to have and what is playable/possible.
 

Sphynx

Commodore
Good points, Lars. Cap ship assaults are already pretty tricky in Saga (finding blind spots or creating them by Wild Weasle attacks is crucial), and the flak would definately make torpedo runs nearly impossible. So, while people may play around changing lasers to flak, I think I like the capship armaments the way they are now. I will say, though, that it was pretty cool to stay at a distance and watch the FS2 flak effect surrounding a capital ship under attack. It looks very dramatic!
 
Top