Thoughts (spoilers)

[Fullback]

Hi!

I've just finished the winning path for Eps 1-4, and I can only describe the experience as pure awesomeness. I love how the look and feel of WC1-2 has been captured, and the dark tone of the plot is quite fitting as well.

I have to say, I wasn't too impressed with all that "perfectly good Confed pilots go pirate just for the hell of it" business, and it didn't make much sense to me to have them reassigned to active frontline combat duty just like that. But that's not such a big deal as, otherwise, the fiction is fairly good overall. Commodore Hard-Ass Reismann is great but I think he could benefit from a bit more "screen time".

The voiceovers contribute a huge deal towards immersion, with some great quotes ("I am Trigger, you are dead"), and give different pilots distinct personalities. And you even reused original WC scores!

The missions are a blast to play, credible design and objectives, and I'd say that they are about the right difficulty, but it's a shame that changing the difficulty level in the options panel doesn't seem to affect gameplay significantly.

As for gameplay itself, I think it's pretty solid overall, but it takes some time getting used to. Everything is deadlier than I remember it, and except for bombers, shields actually shield very little - on the other hand bombers are total sitting ducks, and since the AI just does its thing instead of taking heat off bombers, being shot down while in one isn't as much a function of skill as it is of luck. That is a Bad Thing™. Another thing are laser cannons, which I think are out of balance with the rest of guns - their low power use and high rate of fire make them more effective than other supposedly better weapons. This brings two issues. First, Drakhris are a much worse threat than more advanced and/or heavier fighters, such as the Jalkehi (not to mention the Jalthi!) due to excellent gun convergence and wolf pack tactics. And second and (more importantly), Rapier >>> Sabre. This is also influenced partly by the superiority of the HS and dumbfires over other missiles.

I have a few questions: Can you actually follow Squealer back to the pirate base when he offers to escort you there? I tried, but the nav map wouldn't allow me to set "Pirate Nav" as an objective. Also, what happens if the Firekka fighter complement takes huge losses? I thought it was pretty clever to have the game keep track of craft, but what are the consequences? Can non plot-critical pilots actually be KIA? And, is it a bug that Spoons is listed as "active" in the killboard after he gets iced, or an engine limitation?

Now, I understand that there is also a losing path that is at least as interesting as the alternative, so what are the conditions that set the path? I don't feel like metagaming and letting a carrier die to see if that yields a different result, so is there a mission tree that explains some of this?

Oh, and um... the Raptor is awfully off scale. I know that it's the "official" Claw Marks size, but I think it's obvious that whoever made those just made up a random number without giving it much thought. Anyway, since it's not a campaign fighter, this doesn't have much effect on anything. It's cool to have WC1 oldies available in the sim, at any rate.

I can't wait for the conclusion. Keep up the good work!

 

[Dundradal]

Make sure you keep on them about Ep5....they need the encouragement....

 

[cff]

I have a few questions: Can you actually follow Squealer back to the pirate base when he offers to escort you there? I tried, but the nav map wouldn't allow me to set "Pirate Nav" as an objective.

Yes, you can. RIGHT-click on the respective nav point.

Also, what happens if the Firekka fighter complement takes huge losses?

Moderate losses: you have less wingmen for the missions.
Major losses: You get a game over screen.

 

[Eder]

Hey there, glad you like the game so far... there's more to come.

Commodore Hard-Ass Reismann is great but I think he could benefit from a bit more "screen time".

Yeah, he is great. When we wrote the character he was supposed to be a minor role, but then we ended up getting an awesome voice actor for him (Andi Kravljaca) and gave him a few more un-planned cutscenes, but it still shows that he was originally a minor character. Originally most of his conversations were supposed to be emails to Bradshaw, and Bradshaw was supposed to pass on the mission briefings to his pilots like he does while onboard the Lionheart.

And you even reused original WC scores!

The idea was to move from Privateer to WC1/2 to WC3 scores with each passing episode, and then have all original scores for Ep 5. I'm not sure we'll stick to that idea, since our music guy (Michael Mahadeen) is terribly hard to get a hold of lately, so I might have to reuse old tracks for Ep 5 missions and cutscenes.

The missions are a blast to play, credible design and objectives, and I'd say that they are about the right difficulty, but it's a shame that changing the difficulty level in the options panel doesn't seem to affect gameplay significantly.

Sadly, those settings only affect the AI level (and not much, either), and what's worse, they also seem to affect friendly AI level, so in Rookie mode you will get dumber enemies but also dumber friendlies. Not an issue in WCP/SO, but definitely an issue in Standoff, since we're keeping track of your squadron losses.

Another thing are laser cannons, which I think are out of balance with the rest of guns - their low power use and high rate of fire make them more effective than other supposedly better weapons.

I think the issue here is gun speed. One of the major differences in Standoff is that speeds feel slower than WCP/SO because WCP/SO projectiles had crazy speeds, which was not the case with WC2 guns. Due to this, the WCP/SO AI seems to be fairly better adapted to using faster guns (lasers) which does indeed make a Drakhri seem more deadly than heavier fighters sometimes.

And second and (more importantly), Rapier >>> Sabre. This is also influenced partly by the superiority of the HS and dumbfires over other missiles.

Well, this was the case in WC2 as well. The Sabre is a mediocre dogfighter at best.

I have a few questions: Can you actually follow Squealer back to the pirate base when he offers to escort you there? I tried, but the nav map wouldn't allow me to set "Pirate Nav" as an objective. Also, what happens if the Firekka fighter complement takes huge losses? I thought it was pretty clever to have the game keep track of craft, but what are the consequences? Can non plot-critical pilots actually be KIA? And, is it a bug that Spoons is listed as "active" in the killboard after he gets iced, or an engine limitation?

You have to right click the Pirate nav to set it as a destination. If the Firekka takes heavy losses, you will fly the next missions with only as many ships as you have left, or when that number would be suicidally low, you will get a game-over email for being an incompetent Wing Commander. Non-plot critical pilots can be KIA, but not in any mission (we didn't want to force people to play through half the game again just because they lost too many generic pilots in Ep 2). And yes, the Spoons thing is a bug, it's been fixed for Ep 5. Ep 4 was our most rushed release so far, because it was either rushing everyone to get their job done or watching it stay unfinished for another year. We got a surprisingly bug free Ep 4 as a result, actually, when you consider that.

Now, I understand that there is also a losing path that is at least as interesting as the alternative, so what are the conditions that set the path? I don't feel like metagaming and letting a carrier die to see if that yields a different result, so is there a mission tree that explains some of this?

Well, this is pretty much our number one request from people. No, we don't have a mission tree yet. We'll get around to it, though. Most of the branching would be complicated to put down into a flow chart because you don't just jump from a winning series to a losing series (like WC1 or WC2) depending on certain objectives. Well, actually, you do, but there are other levels of branching beyond that. Some specific series transitions will make you fly an extra mission, which may sometimes be a "second chance" at staying on the "good" path, some of the winning or losing paths of each episode have more than one sub-path, and sometimes there is no one specific condition that lets you know where you will end up (you may have to accomplish 2 out of 3 possible objectives along the whole series to get the "good" path, and some of these objectives may have not been your actual primary mission objectives in the first place, just something that contributes to the war in general... other times you will get a different path just by saving the right friendly capships, regardless of failing some missions, etc).

There is also the major (and simpler) "winning/losing" series-to-series branching, though. Each episode starting with Ep 3 does have two completely different (winning/losing) paths that are NOT connected to their counterpart at all. So if you get a different Episode 3 intro than you did last time, that means your performance somewhere in Episode 2 sent you to a completely different variant of Ep 3 - even though within this variant there can be further branching of its own, none of these branches will take you back to the "other" Ep 3. Either of these two major branches of Ep 3 can take you to either of the two major branches of Ep 4 and either of those can take you to either major branch of Ep 5, though, so you're never "doomed to get the losing ending". You recognize these because the intros are always different. Again, some specific transitions might get you extra missions, so even if you have played both paths of all the episodes, there may be some specific combination that you missed that gives you an extra "transition" mission or two.

Oh, and um... the Raptor is awfully off scale. I know that it's the "official" Claw Marks size, but I think it's obvious that whoever made those just made up a random number without giving it much thought. Anyway, since it's not a campaign fighter, this doesn't have much effect on anything.

Our reasoning exactly. It's not a big deal since it's not a campaign fighter, and it's meant to be old and useless by Standoff's time frame already. It was originally a ship that you could only get to by using the alswantsmoreships cheat in the Sim, and more of a "hey, look, these guys got more ships than they had to in this game" kind of thing. So we just used whatever absurd number people came up with in Claw Marks. The only ship that has actually been downsized is the Gladius (36m long in Armada), since it IS a campaign ship, our Gladius is not the same variant as the Armada Gladius, there had already been two wildly different variants in WC continuity (Armada torpedo bomber and Privateer light fighter) and a 36m length would mean a 72m wingspan (can you imagine getting those wingtip lasers to converge?)... so we made our Gladius 36m *wide*, which makes it 18m long.

The added joke is that the Gladius design is actually the Raptor from Super Wing Commander, take that as you will. Personally I say Raptors are cursed and I'm never ever ever going to touch one again.

 

[JasonRocZ]

In thought about the Gladius there's a few other fighters which I think the Length of the fighter (Front to Rear) and the Wing span had gotten confused in certain manuals.....I can't remember which ones kinda seem that way because there have been a few i've crossed over, Implementing certain models in the Vision engine too...when you look at the original specs then put it in as such...You scratch your head and think "That can't be right, that thing is huuuuuge!!" or quite the opposite... "why is it so small? I used the numbers" hahaha

 

[Fullback]

Yes, you can. RIGHT-click on the respective nav point.

Thanks. It's been some time since I played WCP, and even there, I don't remember ever needing to backtrack.

Hey there, glad you like the game so far... there's more to come.

Great to hear that man. *checks website obsessively for updates*

Sadly, those settings only affect the AI level (and not much, either), and what's worse, they also seem to affect friendly AI level, so in Rookie mode you will get dumber enemies but also dumber friendlies. Not an issue in WCP/SO, but definitely an issue in Standoff, since we're keeping track of your squadron losses.

Yeah, now that you mention it, I noticed that wingmen tend to get shot down slightly less on nightmare... not a spectacular performance increase though... they *suck* at dealing with concentrated flak regardless of difficulty, for instance. No big deal since missions are pretty well balanced as I said and casualties should be expected (unlike in WC1-2).

I think the issue here is gun speed. One of the major differences in Standoff is that speeds feel slower than WCP/SO because WCP/SO projectiles had crazy speeds, which was not the case with WC2 guns. Due to this, the WCP/SO AI seems to be fairly better adapted to using faster guns (lasers) which does indeed make a Drakhri seem more deadly than heavier fighters sometimes.

Interestingly, Drakhris working alone are pretty harmless, but when there's more than two of them, they can be fairly deadly. That is something I haven't observed with other fighters such as the Sartha, which appear in similar numbers. Drakhris just seem to have a knack for shooting the player's rear.

Intentional or not, the great gun distribution of the Drakhri and their competent use of dumbfires, coupled with the hefty numbers in which they are fielded make them a rather effective anti-fighter defense. In WC2 they were just target practice, so it makes things all the more interesting now.

Well, this was the case in WC2 as well. The Sabre is a mediocre dogfighter at best.

Heh. I actually remember the Sabre being in another league entirely in WC2, which is no longer the case in Standoff. Now letting shields soak a few shots is a no-no, so the Rapier has an edge with its superior agility. This makes sense from an in-universe standpoint, with the Rapier II being the superiority design, and the Sabre filling the strike fighter role.

If the Firekka takes heavy losses, you will fly the next missions with only as many ships as you have left, or when that number would be suicidally low, you will get a game-over email for being an incompetent Wing Commander.

Neat. I'd like a bit more flexibility in ship choices, though. While it's possible to make a choice in some missions, the player *is* the Wing Commander. I mean, I came close to running out of Sabres altogether (AI Sabres must be rigged to explode randomly or something...), so I would have flown some missions in Gladii to compensate and spread losses a bit more evenly. This wasn't possible, so Sabre losses kept mounting up, and there was very little I could do about it.

Non-plot critical pilots can be KIA, but not in any mission (we didn't want to force people to play through half the game again just because they lost too many generic pilots in Ep 2).

Hm. Well, I think seeing some of them die in action could be good for the sake of realism (ha!) and immersion. You can already get a game over if you let too many ships be destroyed, so it doesn't really add more chances of losing the game. And by the end of Ep4, the killboard is chock full of redshirt pilots anyway, all of which are listed as "active", at least in my game. Perhaps the bug that made Spoons be "active" also applies to other pilots.

And yeah, save for that detail, I found zero bugs. Funny, I guess bugsquashing is a part of the work that isn't noticed unless it's not done very thoroughly.

Well, this is pretty much our number one request from people... (snip)

Wow, that sounds like mining every last ounce of content from Standoff wouldn't be easy at all, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'll give the different Ep3-4 losing paths a go, but I'll probably wait until a mission tree is out to play the rest of the losing alternate missions, because routinely failing objectives on purpose to see if there's a different result is a bit too out of character for me. I like to win, dammit!

Thanks for the replies all,

Cheerio!

 

[Eder]

Hm. Well, I think seeing some of them die in action could be good for the sake of realism (ha!) and immersion. You can already get a game over if you let too many ships be destroyed, so it doesn't really add more chances of losing the game.

Well, not really - ships are resupplied on a fairly regular basis, pilots are not.

Wow, that sounds like mining every last ounce of content from Standoff wouldn't be easy at all, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Yeah, even the choice at the end of Ep 1 will change a lot of the dialogue and emails for the rest of the game, and it's independent from the mission branching, so if you want to play all the missions and get all the dialogue/emails, you have to play each path twice.

 

[Mjr. Whoopass]

And second and (more importantly), Rapier >>> Sabre. This is also influenced partly by the superiority of the HS and dumbfires over other missiles.

Well, this was the case in WC2 as well. The Sabre is a mediocre dogfighter at best.

Heh. I actually remember the Sabre being in another league entirely in WC2, which is no longer the case in Standoff. Now letting shields soak a few shots is a no-no, so the Rapier has an edge with its superior agility. This makes sense from an in-universe standpoint, with the Rapier II being the superiority design, and the Sabre filling the strike fighter role.

I'm not sure about the WC2 engine, but if it's similar to the WC1 engine, the Sabre would most likely be more superior than it is in Standoff. I remember in WC1's Super NES version, speed and agility mattered little and I even preferred the Raptor to the Rapier.

I think the Standoff version of the Sabre makes sense and even compliments any suggestion of the Sabre's value from in-universe sources. This is because it has potential as an effective bomber as well as being a decent fighter. From an Admiral's viewpoint the Sabre is usually >>> Rapier. If you can take the big ships out of commission you can hault the enemy advance. Just read "Action Stations" and you can see what happens when you take out the big ships. Even with plenty of fighters left you don't have the support you need if your big ships are blasted. The Kilrathi even had to dump fighters over the side in order to recover their pilots in their retreat. Imagine defending a carrier vs. Rapiers (who could never hope to destroy the carrier) or defending it vs. a similar sized force of Sabres escorted by Rapiers and you get the picture.

As far as missile loadout, I think the Sabre is superior to the Rapier II in this department. Those IMREC's are a valuable missile. It's especially useful against Sartha who can't seem to deal with it. Just lock on one from a distance, fire, and forget. Rapidly locking and firing off each IMREC at different Sartha, especially those flown by Drakhai, evens the odds quickly at the start of an engagement and helps your forces to get the upper hand early on.

I also found the Sabre to be much >>> than the Rapier on strike missions. I could pass the Hakaga missions with the Rapier, but I think the Sabre is the only ship where I completely obliterated the Hakaga on Nightmare difficulty level.

I have to say, I wasn't too impressed with all that "perfectly good Confed pilots go pirate just for the hell of it" business, and it didn't make much sense to me to have them reassigned to active frontline combat duty just like that. But that's not such a big deal as, otherwise, the fiction is fairly good overall.

I also cringed at this at first. After considering it, I thought it was a nice reference to the "Fleet Action" book. If you read that, you'll see the desperation of Confed where humanity itself is likely to be annihilated in an overwhelming Kilrathi advance. Confed is desperately short on pilots, especially trained ones and is flying a huge number of pilots who haven't seen combat outside of the simulator. They even eventually let civilian craft with no military training fly into combat without shields or military hardware.

As for why those pilots turned rogue; they might not have realized what little chance the Pirates had of pulling off the operation. They may have been convinced that these Pirates had a solid plan and that it involved little risk of failure. They may have been told they would be listed as MIA or kidnapped (which they were initially thought to be) thus allowing them to get away with the heist. They may have imagined that they'd be instant millionaires as opposed to poorly paid Confed pilots. They may have rationalized the morality of it by thinking that Confed wasn't at war, was treating them with indifference, and that these ships could be replaced. I'm not saying that's conscionable; just that it's believable that some people could think this.

Unfortunately, they showed no remorse even when they were forced to turn on their own friends and former wingmen. It gives you a feeling of frustration that they aren't punished and are even allowed to fly with you. This is great because it creates immersive drama and you can relate to the pilots having a bad reaction.

I thought they should've transferred the traitorous pilots to another ship. I suppose it could make sense to leave them with their comrades: they'd most likely feel guilty and embarassed about their pathetic failed betrayal and may be more inclined to fight well attempting to make up for their sketchy past. This is the impression I get from Squealer's dialogue, though I never get the impression Sparrow is truly remourseful for her actions, other than that she got caught... I guess this fits in with her 'bad girl' character.

If they were Mandarins that'd be another story, but their reason for stealing craft was purely motivated by greed. Also, they weren't the masterminds of that operation, they were following an opportunity presented by Pirates. Presumably they wouldn't have much of an opportunity to do that in the missions ahead.

The fact that they will sell out their friends for cash is a grave concern and it'd be wise to watch them close and make sure they didn't communicate with Kilrathi spies on the inside who might propose $ in exchange for cooperation if they found out these pilots were impressionable. I would've put them on the flight roster too because the situation is just that desperate. I would've suspended any shore leave, email/internet privileges, and kept them under close watch.

I think the high command decision to reinstate the pilots and your reaction make perfect sense.

Oh, and um... the Raptor is awfully off scale. I know that it's the "official" Claw Marks size, but I think it's obvious that whoever made those just made up a random number without giving it much thought. Anyway, since it's not a campaign fighter, this doesn't have much effect on anything.

Our reasoning exactly. It's not a big deal since it's not a campaign fighter, and it's meant to be old and useless by Standoff's time frame already. It was originally a ship that you could only get to by using the alswantsmoreships cheat in the Sim, and more of a "hey, look, these guys got more ships than they had to in this game" kind of thing. So we just used whatever absurd number people came up with in Claw Marks.

In WC1 I much preferred the Raptor to the Rapier. That's probably because speed, agility, and size of the ship made very little difference in the game engine. The ingame cutscenes of WC1 seemed to suggest that the Rapier was slightly superior to the Raptor in certain missions, but not overwhelmingly so as it is in Standoff. Maybe that's because the Standoff team didn't focus on the Raptor (although I think "Fleet Action" suggests it's a common fighter?). I rationalized this by thinking the simulator Raptor is so inferior because it's a WC1 era Raptor and doesn't have the upgrades that happened to the Rapier II over the years.

 

[Mjr. Whoopass]

Well, not really - ships are resupplied on a fairly regular basis, pilots are not.

That would be very immersive if your ship received green rookie replacement pilots who were given low AI compared to the deceased combat experienced pilots. There's a mission where a dying carrier's crew and some of it's fighters are rescued and brought aboard.. that could be a time where the carrier's re-supplied with new pilots that could have higher AI scores.. maybe even bring on an ace or two. Regardless, it's too late at this point.. but maybe for future games if it's not too prohibitively difficult to create (which it probably is).

 

[Fullback]

Well, not really - ships are resupplied on a fairly regular basis, pilots are not.

I don't know the mechanics behind it, but maybe it could be set so there's only a very small chance that a pilot will fail to eject? That would have a pretty negligible effect on available pilots, while still producing that "whoa!" effect - it's a bit artificial that only "Sierra 3" and his pals ever die, despite the amount of Firekka generics being shot down. Of course, this is impossible if it's a yes/no kind of switch that governs whether a pilot will eject or not, as opposed to a numeric parameter... just making conjectures.

Yeah, even the choice at the end of Ep 1 will change a lot of the dialogue and emails for the rest of the game, and it's independent from the mission branching, so if you want to play all the missions and get all the dialogue/emails, you have to play each path twice.

Heh. I just did Ep3 and 4 losing paths, and this time around I actually picked Sparrow up. Good stuff in there - the depressing feeling of fighting a losing battle is just great. And while I like to win, I like it even better when the consequences of losing are so much more than just a forced reload.

I'm not sure about the WC2 engine, but if it's similar to the WC1 engine, the Sabre would most likely be more superior than it is in Standoff. I remember in WC1's Super NES version, speed and agility mattered little and I even preferred the Raptor to the Rapier.

Yeah, the WC1 Raptor was crazy. But only because of the heavy gun load and inability of the AI to avoid getting shot.

Also, I haven't read Fleet Action, but I wasn't questioning the worth of the Sabre from an in-universe perspective. The jump drive and torpedoes make it an infinitely more versatile craft, but gameplay-wise, anything you can do in a Rapier is harder to do in a Sabre.

As far as missile loadout, I think the Sabre is superior to the Rapier II in this department. Those IMREC's are a valuable missile. It's especially useful against Sartha who can't seem to deal with it. Just lock on one from a distance, fire, and forget. Rapidly locking and firing off each IMREC at different Sartha, especially those flown by Drakhai, evens the odds quickly at the start of an engagement and helps your forces to get the upper hand early on.

On the other hand, IMRECs are a coin toss against anything that isn't a Sartha or a Grikath, and FFs are pretty much dead weight.

I also found the Sabre to be much >>> than the Rapier on strike missions. I could pass the Hakaga missions with the Rapier, but I think the Sabre is the only ship where I completely obliterated the Hakaga on Nightmare difficulty level.

I'd say that's a direct consequence of the mediocre bombing skill of the AI. "Capship Strike" involves a flight of Rapiers escorting Gladii against a Fralthi cruiser. That mission is quite hard if you fly the Rapiers, but in a Gladius, it's only moderately difficult and only because the AI can't take out the cruiser before it can swarm you with reinforcements. And I don't think that the Gladius is a better ship than the Rapier because of this.

I also cringed at this at first. After considering it... (snip)

Well, I don't think it's out of place that Confed would let them out of jail and into a cockpit. What I found weird is that they were reassigned to the Firekka specifically. Something like that IS bad for morale, and that is a major factor in the effectiveness of a fighting force. I was surprised that only Spoons was vocal about it.

Also, I didn't find it especially forced that they would defect (and steal ships in the process) - what bugged me is that they would become *pirates*. You know, the kind of people that makes a living out of shooting traders, militia, and even Confed if it comes to that. These characters aren't drafted rank-and-file, they are officers, people who have sworn an oath. Simply going private or even merc would have made much more sense, I think.

The ingame cutscenes of WC1 seemed to suggest that the Rapier was slightly superior to the Raptor in certain missions, but not overwhelmingly so as it is in Standoff. Maybe that's because the Standoff team didn't focus on the Raptor (although I think "Fleet Action" suggests it's a common fighter?). I rationalized this by thinking the simulator Raptor is so inferior because it's a WC1 era Raptor and doesn't have the upgrades that happened to the Rapier II over the years.

In WC1 the Rapier is already designated a medium fighter from what Halcyon says, IIRC. And anyway, isn't that the Rapier I? I thought the ship in WC2 was not supposed to be the same. So yeah, the Raptor being inferior to the Rapier in Standoff makes perfect sense, but not necessarily because of the reasons it is so in-game.

 

[Nomad Terror]

And anyway, isn't that the Rapier I? I thought the ship in WC2 was not supposed to be the same.

The Rapier in Wing Commander is the YF-44 Rapier II

A decade later in Wing Commander 2 it is the F-44H Rapier II.

Same fighter, just a much later revision in Wing Commander II

https://www.wcnews.com/ships2/wc1rapier.shtml


Incidentally, the Rapier (I) is the fighter seen in the Wing Commander movie.

 

[Mjr. Whoopass]

On the other hand, IMRECs are a coin toss against anything that isn't a Sartha or a Grikath, and FFs are pretty much dead weight.

In a situation of pure fighter combat, I'd also take the Dumbfires or HS's over the FF. However, there are situations for a Sabre where the FF can be just as, or even more valuable. They don't have as much damage as the others, but when you need to take out capships fast, blindfiring one every few seconds as you line up a subsystem is a fairly effective way of keeping enemies off your back.

Also, because you're firing them off as you approach a heavy target, they'll lock on to the closest enemy which is generally one that's tailing you the closest. Since it's tailing you, it's more likely to get hit in it's nose which has less protection, compensating for the extra damage a HS or Dumbfire has over it.

I'd say that's a direct consequence of the mediocre bombing skill of the AI. "Capship Strike" involves a flight of Rapiers escorting Gladii against a Fralthi cruiser. That mission is quite hard if you fly the Rapiers, but in a Gladius, it's only moderately difficult and only because the AI can't take out the cruiser before it can swarm you with reinforcements. And I don't think that the Gladius is a better ship than the Rapier because of this.

That's true. I agree that it's not easy to compare it to a Rapier because it's a fighter/bomber and not a pure dogfighter. The simulator records are evidence of the Rapier's superiority in fighter combat. I would still argue that a top pilot in a Sabre could likely still defeat a lower skilled one in a Rapier. On the other hand, if the simulated mission is destroying capships alone, a Rapier pilot wouldn't have a chance of outscoring a Sabre pilot regardless of skill level.

I think though that comparing it to the Gladius is a great way of showing the great value of the Sabre since they are in the same class. I don't think anyone could logically argue that the Sabre isn't a MUCH more effective fighter/bomber overall than the Gladius. Of course the Morningstar is the top fighter/bomber of the Standoff era, but that's the way it is in-universe and the Standoff team also did a great job of balancing it that way in their game.

The Standoff team did a great job helping you feel the necessity of protecting your valuable Sabres and understanding your responsibility as Wing Commander of protecting these valuable assets. I thought the balance between the Rapier and Sabre performance was accurate in relation to in-universe sources.

 

[Eder]

I don't know the mechanics behind it, but maybe it could be set so there's only a very small chance that a pilot will fail to eject? That would have a pretty negligible effect on available pilots, while still producing that "whoa!" effect - it's a bit artificial that only "Sierra 3" and his pals ever die, despite the amount of Firekka generics being shot down.

We can give pilots a chance to eject, even though we don't really know how reliable this (or any other) AI parameters actually are. The problem with things like these is that it's easy for us to lose control over them, game balance-wise. Also, specifically in the case of pilots, it'd be a lot of work to perform the alive/dead check and change the mission accordingly.

The number of ships is checked at the start of *each* mission, because we have set a tolerance that will still let you fly the mission with less ships than what was intended (as long as it's not "too few", and this treshold is also decided by us on a mission-by-mission basis). This is easy to do because we can just count the number of Sabres, call it X, and then tell the mission to spawn either X Sabres in Alpha wing, or our intended number of Sabres in Alpha wing for that mission, whichever number is smaller, or skip the mission altogether and give you a game over screen if X is "too few".

However, pilots are assigned to ships by their actual names (not a count), so for each ship the Firekka launches in each mission we would have to check if that specific pilot is alive before assigning him to that ship, and if he isn't, check for each other pilot in the squadron (because each existing pilot has to be assigned to one of the three squadrons) until we find one that is alive, and if we don't find any, then decide to not spawn that ship, and then move on and do the same for the next wing... and after all this, we'd have to count all the ships that were actually spawned (ie: for which the mission did find living pilots) and compare this end result to our "too few" treshold that decides if the mission will play or if you will get the gameover screen. Whew.

 

[Fullback]

Whew, indeed.

I'm still not too convinced about the difficulty of balancing that, but I can see how the amount of work that implementing it would take is disproportionate compared to the effect it would have. I thought that empty slots could be set to choose pilots randomly from the "active" pool to fill them, but seeing how they are assigned by name, it's probably not worth it. Shows how much I know, heh.

 

[Quarto]

Mind you, WCP did have a mechanism for automatic pilot assignment, where randomly-chosen redshirts were assigned to every fighter that wasn't specifically given a pilot. It's just that it's one of those things that we had trouble getting to work properly for us. Given what else we've achieved, it probably would be no problem to work it out now - but at this point, we're rather interested in finishing the game instead of coming up with even more features to implement.

 

[Mjr. Whoopass]

So Standoff guys: any way you can complete a task or two to turn another bar 'blue' on your progress chart? Just giving some friendly encouragement.. keep up the good work!

 

[Quarto]

As a matter of fact, we are indeed making a good amount of progress lately... you can expect a news update this weekend that will, at the least, de-red the progress chart a bit. Will there be blue involved as well? Remains to be seen...

That said, as far as the most important task (the missions) is concerned, we've still got a lot of work ahead.

 

[Fullback]

Nice to hear!

 

[Dundradal]

Just keep on them! I've noticed the mailing list tends to be more active when they are being hounded

 

[Mjr. Whoopass]

Yeah for yellow! It's hard to remember which all areas changed, but it definitely looks like you guys are moving forward and checking things off. Nice work team, keep it up!