Jump to content
eliteone

Poll: Would you rather have Clone Wars or FO/Resistance?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

The big issue I have with the clone wars being added to armada is a major reworking on how squadrons are used in the game will need to be implemented. Contrary to what many believe, the clone wars was not a capital ship on capital ship conflict. Nearly all large capital ships in the conflict held substantial number of fighters. For instance the venator alone held 192 v wings, 192 ETA-2 jedi interceptors and 36 arc-170. Compared to a providence class like the invisible hand which carried 120 vulture droids and 120 droid tri-fighters. Even a lucrehulk is capable of fielding 1500 vulture droids. The staggering amount of fighters carried by these ships means there has to be a tradeoff some where. For the venator due to its ventral hanger bay it should be very weak to attacks as the long open areas in the hanger bay would weaken the structural integrity of the ship as a whole. Plus true to its role as a carrier it is a glass cannon. It's only capable weapons are its eight heavy turbo laser cannons on port and starboard sides which are only capable of projecting it's full fire power in those arcs. At most to target enemies in front of it it can only ever bring two cannons to bear at a time. This is why it's only true ability to project its power is in its squadrons but that also weakens it as it is incapable of defending itself. I could go on and on but most would not have the time or patience for it so I will stop here.

Edited by Colindarklighter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Colindarklighter said:

The big issue I have with the clone wars being added to armada is a major reworking on how squadrons are used in the game will need to be implemented. Contrary to what many believe, the clone wars was not a capital ship on capital ship conflict. Nearly all large capital ships in the conflict held substantial number of fighters. For instance the venator alone held 192 v wings, 192 ETA-2 jedi interceptors and 36 arc-170. Compared to a providence class like the invisible hand which carried 120 vulture droids and 120 droid tri-fighters. Even a lucrehulk is capable of fielding 1500 vulture droids. The staggering amount of fighters carried by these ships means there has to be a tradeoff some where. For the venator due to its ventral hanger bay it should be very weak to attacks as the long open areas in the hanger bay would weaken the structural integrity of the ship as a whole. Plus true to its role as a carrier it is a glass cannon. It's only capable weapons are its eight heavy turbo laser cannons on port and starboard sides which are only capable of projecting it's full fire power in those arcs. At most to target enemies in front of it it can only ever bring two cannons to bear at a time. This is why it's only true ability to project its power is in its squadrons but that also weakens it as it is incapable of defending itself. I could go on and on but most would not have the time or patience for it so I will stop here.

 

 

Well, looked like an extrem good capital vs capital. No matter how many fighters are there. This is a pure Broadside fire capital fight.
With these scenes i could believe the Clone Wars ships will not have any red dice at all 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That's embellishment created for the movies, if it was a real battle, the majority of the fighting would have been done by fighters similar to the battle of midway. Both the republic and separatist ships have horrible structural integrity due to the huge number of fighters carried by the ships. This means the main combat philosophy was not the big gun philosophy of the later civil war but a carrier philosophy much like today's naval philosophy. The downside of the carrier philosophy is that most of a fleets combat capacity is tied up in its fighters and its only way to project its power is by sending out its fighters. The battle of coursant was most likely an anomaly as they had to attempt to rescue chancellor palpatine before the CIS fleet fled from the battlefield necessitating a close combat brawl battle to prevent the CIS ships from being able to jump to hyperspace. This would not have been the norm in the clone wars as both sides ships where designed not only as carriers but also as troop transports and battles between ships would be a huge waste of military resources on both sides.

Edited by Colindarklighter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree there was a heavy emphasis on fighters, you still have a lot of the battles being decided by ship combat, at least that we see, as one side tried to prevent a landing, kill the launch bays etc. Plus you had a bunch of actual escort ships (especially on the Seppy side) that were more for combat, and to support the big carriers.

It'll be interesting to see how they try to take this into account. Perhaps higher squadron values? Representing the command and control aspects of so many fighter?

But also clearly what the battle for Coursant  is is a new Sector Fleet battle, so everyone's been reduced to only 25% fighters ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even on the separatist side, many of there support ships like the munificent or the rescuant had open spaces in the hull that could accommodate fighters, while I will agree that the primary design of most of the separatist support ships was not being a carrier but more in line as ships ment to support and defend the carriers, their secondary use was to ferry extra fighters into battle. And in the case of a battle to prevent a landing, the ships especially the republic ones if my memory serves me and it was the siege of ryloth you are referring to, the reason the republic was unable to land was because of a blunder from ashoka which led to the bridge of a venator being damaged. Still the venators primary design was as a carrier and a troop transport. Not a front line combat ship. That would be more around the design of the victory star destroyer which was better designed for ship to ship combat. And while battles did come down to ship to ship combat, I myself take little stock in what was made for both TV and the movies as it makes for better visuals. Since the game of armada is designed around trying to create a semi realistic space naval simulator, certain embellishments that the movies and TV did have to be removed to balance and keep the game from becoming a single faction is king game. My issue is many people who want the clone wars in armada are blinded by the fact that George Lucas was horrible at writing and then implementing the concept of the clone wars which is no better exemplified in the apparent change in naval philosophy from carrier based combat to big gun based ships which should never have happened. I find the clone wars to be the worst portion of the star wars mythos because it is an anomaly within the history of the series. For instance the 2-1b medical droid, first appearing the empire strikes back. No person should ever be operated on by s droid like that and the you have b1 and b2 battle droids that look to be better constructed than a droid ment for complex surgery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Colindarklighter said:

Still the venators primary design was as a carrier and a troop transport. Not a front line combat ship. That would be more around the design of the victory star destroyer which was better designed for ship to ship combat. And while battles did come down to ship to ship combat, I myself take little stock in what was made for both TV and the movies as it makes for better visuals. Since the game of armada is designed around trying to create a semi realistic space naval simulator, certain embellishments that the movies and TV did have to be removed to balance and keep the game from becoming a single faction is king game. My issue is many people who want the clone wars in armada are blinded by the fact that George Lucas was horrible at writing and then implementing the concept of the clone wars which is no better exemplified in the apparent change in naval philosophy from carrier based combat to big gun based ships which should never have happened. I find the clone wars to be the worst portion of the star wars mythos because it is an anomaly within the history of the series. For instance the 2-1b medical droid, first appearing the empire strikes back. No person should ever be operated on by s droid like that and the you have b1 and b2 battle droids that look to be better constructed than a droid ment for complex surgery.

1: The Venator was designed and produced as a response to the Acclamator, which wasnt best designed as a fleet command ship. So the Venator was designed to be a carrier, line battleship, military transport, and fleet command ship

2: The OT ships are no better designed, and in fact, I would say worse designed. While the Venator does have the same Turbolaser placement as the ISD, we see that they also have some point defense, broadside capabilities, and they are also seen putting ATTEs on the hull, and retrofiting the ventral hanger bay to have MORE guns. The ISD doesnt even have point defense systems, it has a single hanger deck (as far as I am aware) and thus super limited fighter launching capacity.

3: the transition from carrier fleets to gun fleets is a reverse mirror of our world. Most of our navy's have switched to the carrier battle group style, and that started around WW2. Before that, it was the big gun/lots o' gun idea. Star Wars did it in reverse.

Edited by Ling27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Colindarklighter said:

I myself take little stock in what was made for both TV and the movies as it makes for better visuals. Since the game of armada is designed around trying to create a semi realistic space naval simulator, certain embellishments that the movies and TV did have to be removed to balance and keep the game from becoming a single faction is king game. My issue is many people who want the clone wars in armada are blinded by the fact that George Lucas was horrible at writing and then implementing the concept of the clone wars which is no better exemplified in the apparent change in naval philosophy from carrier based combat to big gun based ships which should never have happened. I find the clone wars to be the worst portion of the star wars mythos because it is an anomaly within the history of the series. For instance the 2-1b medical droid, first appearing the empire strikes back. No person should ever be operated on by s droid like that and the you have b1 and b2 battle droids that look to be better constructed than a droid ment for complex surgery.

Yet the movies and TV series are both what defined Star Wars and the highest source of canon around.  You can deviate from them for balance reasons, sure, but there's no reason to make major changes for the sake of major changes in defiance of primary media.  Horrible is a point of view; do you find fault in the doctrines of the Clone Wars (based on Pacific WW2 naval warfare) or those of the GCW?  In a few decades we might well have droids operating on us; if your complaint with the 2-1B is the appearance, it's important to remember 2 things:

1. The Prequel trilogy shows how things decay from prosperous times for the galaxy to suffering.

2. The Original Trilogy is 42 years old.  The 2-1B looks pretty slick for that time, and you can't expect popular perception of a robot not to change, or film making technology.  If you use the same special effects and props decades later, your audience just won't be impressed.  It's worth it to take a step back and recognize the practical side of things.

Edited by The Jabbawookie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Colindarklighter said:

That's embellishment created for the movies, if it was a real battle, the majority of the fighting would have been done by fighters similar to the battle of midway. Both the republic and separatist ships have horrible structural integrity due to the huge number of fighters carried by the ships. This means the main combat philosophy was not the big gun philosophy of the later civil war but a carrier philosophy much like today's naval philosophy. The downside of the carrier philosophy is that most of a fleets combat capacity is tied up in its fighters and its only way to project its power is by sending out its fighters. The battle of coursant was most likely an anomaly as they had to attempt to rescue chancellor palpatine before the CIS fleet fled from the battlefield necessitating a close combat brawl battle to prevent the CIS ships from being able to jump to hyperspace. This would not have been the norm in the clone wars as both sides ships where designed not only as carriers but also as troop transports and battles between ships would be a huge waste of military resources on both sides.

If you apply this amount of logic to all of Star Wars you will find that most of the ships don't make sense in design for warfare. Eckhartsladder has a nice video on it on youtube also.

 

You should not forget that Star Wars is more a fantasy story in a science fiction setting and not trying to be realistic. 

So they can stil give the Clone Wars stuff decent fighting stats in Armada without many people being bothered about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...