Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Azrapse

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,758 profile views
  1. "They keep trying to dip their toes into that water"? When? As stated above, the designer team didn't know what to do of HotAC when shown to them. As if it was something they had never even considered or wanted doing. FFG has had 8 years to even experiment with solo or coop formats, or even just single missions, but unless I am mistaken, they released none. Not even back then when they used to pack cinematic missions with large ships. All those missions were versus. One thing is to prioritize "versus" over coop/solo, and another thing is to totally dismiss it solo/coop, that is what they have been doing for two editions, up until the very moment that a pandemia makes them regret their decision. And of course versus is going to be the thing that makes money for them if it is the only thing they offer! What an absurd vicious circle! Solo/coop doesn't give us money, so we don't develop any solo/coop. And since solo/coop doesn't exist, it doesn't give us any money.
  2. I think the proposed Tractor and Jamming effects would be quite useful to be equipped on cheap generics, like scyks, b-wings, or starwings, so that you could have a couple of cheap debuffers "painting" targets for your heavy hitters with their tractor beams, while still having a chance to do their attacks in their turn. Or one or two guys softening the opponent's alpha strike or large/huge ships turrets with their jamming beams, as you approach with your heavy hitters. Imagine one wing of B-wings attacking a huge ship, while equipped with jamming beams. It would not only be effective, but also really lore-friendly. Or some TIE Bombers escorted by jamming Starwings. I think the key is that they must not be attacks, but passive and limited with charges, so that using them doesn't mean that guy doesn't contribute to deal damage that round.
  3. I am not sure why you are tracing a line between HotAC and Euro-games. Hotac is as much Ameri-trash as "versus X-wing". It's not really so different from Descent 2 or Imperial Assault. If they wanted to, they would do as they did with Descent 2 or Imperial Assault and make an app that plays the AI for you, just telling you where to move the enemies each turn, and let the player play solo or coop with friends/family. But they don't want to. I think, from the very beginning they thought that X-wing is versus, and versus is X-wing, and anything else is anathema, even if they publicly say "We love seeing those fan-mad coop campaigns", while grinding their teeth. Perhaps they saw no real widespread use of that Mission Control tool they made, or the scenarios they used to pack with each large ship box, and they were told to only focus on adding more and more pieces to the 1vs1 side of the game, and treat the rest as an anomaly. I still think this decision is biting them in the *** now.
  4. Already last year they were saying that "X-wing isn't carrying the water as it used to." I bet it was because of the change of edition, but also due to the sequel movies being what they are, and the absurd choice of reprints. I imagine this year's hotness is solo games, or coop games you can play home with your family, due to the global pandemia. And FFG really never focused X-wing on that. In the interview with the creator of HotAC, he said that when he showed it to Alex Davy, he was impressed with the quality "but didn't know what to do of it". As if they couldn't wrap their minds about the idea of someone wanting to play X-wing in coop or solo. The Solo Alpha AI system they came up with last month looks like a totally rushed measure to try and give some reason to the customers to keep buying X-wing products in these times when fully competitive, tournament oriented board games without online presence must not be doing very well. I am not confident that FFG is actually having serious plans in respect to this solo/coop mode, though. If they did, they would have contacted the HotAC creator, or the people that have put the effort to update the system to 2.0, and get something out fast and well supported, with good production values, before people lose interest and move onto other pandemia-friendly games. Instead, the seem to have told someone to put together a PDF with generic rules, and throw it at the community to see what they make of it. I might be wrong, but that is the impression I get. And impressions and appearances is what I use to guide my spending in hobbies.
  5. In my informed but still personal opinion, that is informed from playing the X-wing games in VR (don't ask how): Cockpit visibility is overrated: You have your sensor that tells you with a quick glance where is everything, including your current target. Sure looking around is cool, but it's not any big advantage. TIEs will have no disadvantage in this respect. Distractions are real. See 5 things moving around you and you will lose your focus. HOTAS, and joysticks in general, are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overrated: Of all the controlling methods I have tried, including thumbsticks in gamepads, and even mouse+keyboard, the joystick is the least precise, and most cumbersome of them all. Joystick owners try to convince themselves otherwise, because they are cool and because it's what real-world fighters have. But for a game such as this, they are plainly an expensive toy. The fact that they have given a function to the throttle in this game to give you extra maneuverability when positioned in the sweetspot is just a gimmick to give that useless piece of hardware a use at all. Real pros control their speed with the power settings, anyway. (I expect incoming fire from joystick-heads. I don't care). "Gaming laptop" is an oxymoron: A gaming computer needs 3 things - powerful GPU, good cooling, upgradeability. Laptops suck at all those three things. You may as well wish for a formula 1 car that has big trunk, it's easy to park, and consumes little gas. Regarding the shields on TIEs, they will probably make them just sturdier. But they could have also gone the path of making them jus having tighter hitboxes, while Rebels have shield but bigger hitboxes.
  6. In a browser, go to your router address. It's usually or If the address is right, you will see some login webpage asking you for username and password. Usually you need to enter the router's admin credentials here. This changes per router brand and model, so you better check your router manual. In most of the routers I have had, it's been username: admin password: admin. Find the section where you manage the port redirection. It is usually under Advanced settings, and it's called "NAT", "Network Address Translation", "Virtual Servers", "Port Forwarding", or some other similar name. Find the way to add a new "server" or "service" to the table. It usually consists on specifying an internal IP, internal port, external port, and the protocol. In the internal IP you need to specify the local IP address of the computer running Fly Casual which your friend will connect to. This address will usually start with 192.168.xxx.xxx. You can find the IP address of your computer by opening a command line (Start button, type cmd and press enter), and typing the ipconfig command. (Just ipconfing, and press Enter). In the internal and external port, you need specify the port that Fly Casual uses (that is 7777). In the protocol, specify TCP or TCP/UDP. Save the changes. You router might want to restart. Let it. Start the game in your computer as a host. Windows might now be asking you in the desktop (check if the window doesn't appear on top of the game) whether you allow the game to accept incoming connections. Say yes. Your friend must enter your router's external IP. You can now what your external IP is by going to https://www.whatismyip.com/ . It's the one called Public IPv4 address. If all went well, your friend's game will connect to your game. Play, have fun. Profit. Edit: If your computer is set to get a dynamic IP address from your router every time it's switched on, you will need to repeat the entire process every time. Perhaps you better change your computer to have a fix IP address in Windows network settings.
  7. Strange and interesting. Why would a LAN make the game's netplay break? I would expect the opposite.
  8. In that list all save for the Ghost were Expanded Universe ships. The Jumpmaster and Hound's Tooth were from comics (even when I think the Hound's Tooth appeared in Clone Wars at some point). The Decimator, Scyk and Z-95 are from videogames (even when a totally differently looking Z-95 appeared in Clone Wars at some point). Ships like the TIE Defender were Legends up until the moment they appeared in Rebels, with a slightly different design. But FFG's re-released model is still like the Legends/First Edition one, so we could almost count it as Legends ship. The things is that at the pace Disney has been re-canonizing ships in different media, it barely matters whether as ship is currently Legends-only or not. Anytime it could appear in any canon comic, novel, or series, and bam, it's canon. For example, the Alpha-class Starwing XG-1 is mentioned in a canon book called Star Wars: The Rebel Files, as an Imperial ship captured by the Alliance and lost during the Battle of Endor. And the E-wing appeared in the background in a canon comic.
  9. Whatever TLT 2.0 ends up becoming, it cannot be just better than Dorsal Turret or Ion Canon Turret in all situations, because we would go back to the point that it would be the only turret worth taking. The game would devolve again into a bunch of the cheapest TLT carriers carrying TLTs. If you make TLT a plain 3 dice 1-2 range turret, even if more expensive in points, who would ever take Dorsal? You can't either make it a 2 dice 2-3 range turret, because in that case it remains being as bad as the current K-wing peashooter. A double arc 2 dice 2-3 peashooter? Bring enough of them to the table so that they add up? Nah. Again, it would be a straight upgrade from Dorsal, and again it would devolve into a mass of the cheapest TLT carriers. Perhaps we are looking at it wrong. Did Y-wings, the Ghost, HWK, etc really ever equip twin laser turrets in the lore? Not really. The K-wing, and the TIE Aggressor did have two turrets. Perhaps the new incarnation of TLT could be something akin to what Linked Battery was in 1.0 for double cannon ships, but for double turret ships. Now, passive mods are bad, because they are autoinclude and poison. But what about: Twin Laser Turret (turret upgrade) When attacking with a (turret arc) weapon, if either you or the defender revealed a straight maneuver this round, you may assign one strain token to the defender. That is, the upgrade itself isn't an attack, but a modifier for turret attacks. Now give one turret slot to the K-wing (so that it has a slot and a turret primary), and another to the TIE Aggressor (so that it ends up with two turret slots), and other ships that had two turrets in the lore (not to the Decimator, or others that don't need it). The strain token lowers the defense of the defender, making more likely to land a hit with a 2 dice peashooter, without going overboard with damage. Also, you need to do straights to get that effect, making you more predictable, and giving a chance to the defender to counterplay it (you are easier to arcdodge).
  10. I guess FGG wants to reprint first all the fan favorite and more popular ships, as they did with the Jumpmaster, Hound's Tooth, Decimator, Ghost, Scyk, Z-95... Sorry for the sarcasm. I just can't understand certain decisions... It would make sense that for the Galactic Empire, FFG wanted to bring out first new canon stuff like the TIE heavy from Solo, since they would sell it both to veterans and newcomers. But at this point I wouldn't really be surprised that the next batch of reprints for the Empire were the TIE Punisher and TIE Aggressor...
  11. Thing is that playing versus AI, especially with the limitations that "blind" AI like this has, isn't the same kind of game as playing against a human. It can't be. In simple terms, playing against a human is playing chess, while playing versus blind AIs is playing horde survival: a game of attrition versus a horde of semi-mindless drones, where the main skill is not to outguess your opponent and counter their play, but to manage your resources (hitpoints, charges), and balancing your risk/reward ratio to survive as long as you can, or until the mission objectives are complete, if any. That's why both HOTAC and this came with the concept of waves or reinforcements. Nobody is expecting the AI to actually be good. They are expecting the AI to be overwhelming enough to suppose a challenge. So I do think AI ships should have one particular attitude that the player needs to react to and adapt, often having to plan ahead how to act depending on which attitude has which AI ship. Of course, you can play chess solo, and you can also attempt to have that here, making a supercomplicated AI system that is tied to the same rules and follows the same reasonings as a player would. But that would be definitely much more complex and slower to simulate, and I am not sure it would really be the right direction for this.
  12. Indeed. It should have been 15 pages for explaining the rules in detail, then 1 extra page with all charts, rolls, listings, and reminders in concise form, so that you only need to use that as reference. About the attitude, it totally feels like they had something more advanced in mind, but for this first version they decided to scrap it and just make it random. Attitude should not be random, but follow some logic. Either a ship is always aggressive (with orders to destroy an objective at all cost), always defensive (objective ships trying to escape the board), or it must depend on the context (escorts are passive until attackers get close to their escortee; patrols are aggressive until they get damaged, then turn defensive; attackers are aggressive, unless they have no-one in arc, and they are in some enemy's arc, then the behave defensively). Changing attitude just because a roll makes no sense, unless the goal was to have a schizophrenic AI.
  13. I've been saying this since it came out. It seems as this app was designed solely by the marketing team, while perhaps having a post-it from the game dev team with a bullet list with the minimum required features. Huge images, huge margins, huge amount of screen real estate dedicated to just ornamental or cosmetical borders. However, I can't really believe it's all of FFG's fault. Their other apps, like in Descent 2 and Imperial Assault, they are top notch! Offline-friendly, 3D apps with music and sound effects even, that work like a miracle in tons of different platforms! So we know they can do it, and do it beyond right. So what happened?
  14. Do you guys think it would help the AI if the expression "towards the Tally" was redefined to mean: If the Tally has already activated this round, its current position. If the Tally has not yet activated this round, its current position plus 2 forward template length. ? This way, the AI would try to "lead its target". Otherwise, low initiative AI will try their best to aim towards positions where their Tallies will no longer be at the start of the engagement phase. So what's the point? By making low initiative ships try to go not where the Tally is, but where it is going to be, perhaps makes them more effective at blocking or shooting. What do you think?
  • Create New...