The Little things that bug me.

[Raneko]

You think by 2668 Rapiers will have ITTS systems installed by then.

Flying the Sabre with bomber loads in the simulator It would be nice to have an eight missiles instead of four missles and four useless torps when I'm playing the fighter gauntlet in the sim.

Gun ranges seem so small it's like I have to get point blank before I can hit something with lasers and closer still with neutorns.

other then that the game is fun and brings back all the warm and fuzzy memories I had when I was 12 huntin fuzzball.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

2668 is only a year after WC2 ends -- and Rapier IIs notably lacked ITTSes there.

 

[cff]

Also ignoring the fact that there are supposingly peace times. So upgrading ships probably isn't a priority either.

 

[Quarto]

Flying the Sabre with bomber loads in the simulator It would be nice to have an eight missiles instead of four missles and four useless torps when I'm playing the fighter gauntlet in the sim.

There's plenty of fighters to fly in the sim - we had to keep a few bombers in there as well, though, otherwise we couldn't really have bombing missions.

Gun ranges seem so small it's like I have to get point blank before I can hit something with lasers and closer still with neutorns.

Gun ranges are exactly the same as in the original game, though .

 

[Ijuin]

What you're seeing is that WC2 gun ranges are shorter than WCP gun ranges. In WCP, the Mass Drivers had a range of about 3000 m and Lasers/Particles had a range of like 4500 m. In WC2, it's more like 2500 m/4000 m.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

What you're seeing is that WC2 gun ranges are shorter than WCP gun ranges. In WCP, the Mass Drivers had a range of about 3000 m and Lasers/Particles had a range of like 4500 m. In WC2, it's more like 2500 m/4000 m.

Origin's Official Guide to Wing Commander Prophecy says 2,000 m for Mass Drivers and 5,000 m for Lasers. The Wing Commander I blueprints say 3,000 m for Mass Drivers and 4,800 m for Lasers.

 

[Raneko]

There's plenty of fighters to fly in the sim - we had to keep a few bombers in there as well, though, otherwise we couldn't really have bombing missions.

That doesn't really explain why the hottest fighter (that can carry a decent number of missiles) in the game is stuck carrying four useless weapons?

There are bombers and there are fighters and the sabre is a fighter.

If we can fly the sabre in episode four will be stuck with the bomber loadout?

 

[Ijuin]

Raneko, the problem is that providing a Sabre with a different loadout means essentially providing a duplicate of the entire Sabre set of files, including the mesh and config and whatnot--you cannot simply define an alternate set of weapons for the Vision engine.

On the Mass Driver range--somehow I had thought that the Mass Drivers had a longer range than 2000 m in Prophecy--it definitely seemed like it when I flew the Tigershark and Shrike.

 

[Quarto]

There are bombers and there are fighters and the sabre is a fighter.

What the Sabre is, is a heavy fighter .

If we can fly the sabre in episode four will be stuck with the bomber loadout?

Yes... and no. It depends on the mission - any time you take the Sabre on a bombing mission, you will, obviously, have torpedoes. But there's also gonna be one or two occasions to fly the Sabre in a fighter loadout - and there will certainly be more such opportunities in episode 5.

 

[Sonic TH]

Too bad there can't be a ship file/loadout editor that would work with standoff but not allow cheating. Then custom loadouts would be possible but there would have to be some way to confirm the loadouts when the sim or game loads up.

 

[Quarto]

Eh, personally I'd be opposed to loadout selection in any form more complex than what we've got currently, even if it was doable and easy. As a player, I found the loadout selection in WC3/4 convenient... but as a designer, I think it was terrible, because it meant the player nearly always loads every ship with the exact same missile type. Back in WC1/2, the ship's missile loadout was an important characteristic that did a lot to help define a given's ship personality. This wasn't the case at all in WC3/4 (except for the bombers, who were the only ones with torpedo hardpoints), and it sucked - I was very glad that missile selection did not exist in WCP.

Heck, even ignoring the ship personality issues, when I make a mission I want to know what resources the player will have at his disposal, because it hugely affects how the mission will work and how difficult it will be. If you let the player take whatever he likes, you have to make a vanilla mission that will be playable with whatever the player has. Players might find that convenient, but the game loses a lot in the process.

 

[Farbourne]

A point--the loadouts in WC3/WC4 weren't completely customizeable. Some hardpoints couldn't mount FF/Imrec missiles, so you were forced to occasionally use the less popular missiles.

But I agree that customized loadouts took away from the personality of the ships, and that made WC3/WC4 a little cheap. But in Standoff, you guys added some nice, realistic features like having the number of ships available carry over from mission to mission, so doing bad in one mission and losing a lot of ships makes other missions harder because, well, you don't have those ships.

I always thought it would be neat if there were a finite number of MISSILES available, of each type, and the player as squadron commander would have to make decisions about what missiles to arm his squadron with each mission. Maybe you only have a total of 20 imrecs available for a 5 mission campaign, to be shared among ALL squadron members, so you better only arm your ships with imrecs when you really need them (say, fleet defense), and take dumbfire and heatseekers at other times. Combine that with the lighter ships having limited hardpoints that could only mount the smaller missiles, and I think, idealogically, that would be a good compromise between complete customized loadouts and unchangeable loadouts. I actually thought this would be the case in Standoff when, in the prologue intro, there's an e-mail about limited missile supplies. But maybe the engine didn't allow you to do that?

In general, I've always wanted to see a game where the player as the squadron commander has the exact same resources and decisions that a real squadron commander has--the ability to choose ship assignments, loadouts (within physical limitations), and even wingman pairings for every mission, but also the same limits that a real commander would have--finite number of ships available, finite number of spare parts and tech crew manhours to keep ships in repair, finite amounts of ordinance, finite number of missions that each person could fly in a short time span before becoming fatigued and flying more poorly. But I know I'm dreaming.

 

[Eder]

I actually thought this would be the case in Standoff when, in the prologue intro, there's an e-mail about limited missile supplies. But maybe the engine didn't allow you to do that?

We dropped the idea because it'd be overcomplicating things. The email in episode 1 is just meant to explain why nobody has any Dumbfires even though they'd be very helpful in the "Destroy the turrets" objective in M5 (as any AI-controlled Rapier will show you in Episodes 2 & 3, dumbfires are good at destroying turrets).

In general, I've always wanted to see a game where the player as the squadron commander has the exact same resources and decisions that a real squadron commander has [...] But I know I'm dreaming.

Well, we have to make sure the game stays fun. Adding complexity to an action game is risky business.

 

[PopsiclePete]

I always thought it would be neat if there were a finite number of MISSILES available, of each type, and the player as squadron commander would have to make decisions about what missiles to arm his squadron with each mission. Maybe you only have a total of 20 imrecs available for a 5 mission campaign, to be shared among ALL squadron members, so you better only arm your ships with imrecs when you really need them (say, fleet defense), and take dumbfire and heatseekers at other times. Combine that with the lighter ships having limited hardpoints that could only mount the smaller missiles, and I think, idealogically, that would be a good compromise between complete customized loadouts and unchangeable loadouts.
[...]
In general, I've always wanted to see a game where the player as the squadron commander has the exact same resources and decisions that a real squadron commander has--the ability to choose ship assignments, loadouts (within physical limitations), and even wingman pairings for every mission, but also the same limits that a real commander would have--finite number of ships available, finite number of spare parts and tech crew manhours to keep ships in repair, finite amounts of ordinance, finite number of missions that each person could fly in a short time span before becoming fatigued and flying more poorly. But I know I'm dreaming.

Maybe the next WC will implement some of those "management" things... after all Strike Commander (ever played this game ?) had you manage finite number of planes and weapons loadout based of the squadron's financial capacity, and it was IMHO on of the coolest aspect of the game. I don't think it'd go as far as having you manage spare parts and tech crew manhours though, because a game has to stay fun

 

[Delance]

Eh, personally I'd be opposed to loadout selection in any form more complex than what we've got currently, even if it was doable and easy. As a player, I found the loadout selection in WC3/4 convenient... but as a designer, I think it was terrible, because it meant the player nearly always loads every ship with the exact same missile type.

Actually, I think the Dragon had 4 hardpoints that could only fit HS or DF missiles. I'm not entirely sure, but this would make the loadout more interesting, because it limits the options.

Another odd aspect of WCIV is that the HS did less damage than the IR, unlike other games. It would be more of an incentive to use the HS if it did more damage.

 

[Lt.Death100]

Another odd aspect of WCIV is that the HS did less damage than the IR, unlike other games. It would be more of an incentive to use the HS if it did more damage.

Both missiles kill in 1 hit.

 

[ChrisReid]

Both missiles kill in 1 hit.

No they don't. They can, but it's completely dependent on several factors. The IR is 12.5% more powerful.

In general, I've always wanted to see a game where the player as the squadron commander has the exact same resources and decisions that a real squadron commander has--the ability to choose ship assignments, loadouts (within physical limitations), and even wingman pairings for every mission, but also the same limits that a real commander would have--finite number of ships available, finite number of spare parts and tech crew manhours to keep ships in repair, finite amounts of ordinance, finite number of missions that each person could fly in a short time span before becoming fatigued and flying more poorly. But I know I'm dreaming.

That sounds like it's getting to be a completely different type of game altogether. I think most people would find that a bit more tedious than fun.

There are bombers and there are fighters and the sabre is a fighter.

And there are some that are both.

Morningstar - Heavy Fighter
The Morningstar is generally recognized as the current Confederation state-of-the-art capital ship destroyer.

 

[Delance]

No they don't. They can, but it's completely dependent on several factors. The IR is 12.5% more powerful.

Yeah, and the HS used to be stronger. It would be a good incentive to use it. A progression frow how practical the weapon is to how much damage it does.

 

[Ijuin]

That, and the HS in WC3/WCP had a bit more speed and agility, which meant that it was harder to outrun unless you were stupid enough to fire it at long range at a Darket/Strakha that could (comparatively) turn on a dime.

 

[Sonic TH]

Well you can't have it both ways, too much choice may be bad but no choices at all can also be bad.

I always liked games that give more control, there could always be a "default" setup if you just want to skip it and play the next mission. Games like mechwarrior IMHO had a good balance between custom loadouts and limits for example.

Maybe that's why I always liked privateer over wing commander, of course this is all beyond the scope of SO's game engine.