So I have been experimenting with different configurations for hardpoints for the different ships. I have tried them with all hardpoints, with "critical" hardpoints (shield generators, engines, etc.), and with no hardpoints. Unfortunately, the limited hardpoints did not work out the way that I planned. Personally, I like the hardpoints, as it allows for more specific targeting of large ships. However, hardpoints do become, as SpardaSon21 pointed out, a big game of "snipe the shield generator". So, what is your preference? Let me know and your reasons why.
Hardpoints
Yes or no to hardpoints? Smaller scale means that the ships are starting to get cluttered, so keep 'em or lose 'em?
Posted by p*a*t*t*o*n on
Well, SpardaSon21 made an excellent point, however, if you want it to be canon, create hardpoints that affect the ship's movement. I really think there ought to be a bridge on, say, Star Destroyers. This would be a good hardpoint that, as you can see in the movie, could cripple the entire ship inoperable. I do think engines should barely let the ship move, if not at all, when destroyed. So, for my preference, keep the hardpoints.
I say keep hardpoints as they are, but increase their hitpoints, say, 2x. This way, people would likely find it a waste of time to take them down (as opposed to targeting the entire ship in general) unless they had some sort of large strategic significance, such as disabling the engines on a star destroyer so it can't join the main front and instead become useless in the back lines.
Would it be possible at all to make it so bombers get a bonus against hardpoints? This would increase their value and further make targeting a ship in general the "standard" tactic.
Bomber torpedoes already have a damage modifier to increase damage to large ships in stock eaw/foc.
I think that there should be multiple critical hardpoints. Mon cals hav eight shield generators if I remember correctly so they could get eight shield gen hardpoints. You may want to distribute the health over those eight so they aren't each very hard to take down, this should make it more of a choice between taking out weapons or shields.
hmm... I like that idea. Would it at all be possible to only take town one section of the shield at a time? Not sure if this is doable...
But yes multiple shield generators is a good idea.
It isn't possible due to game limitations to only bring down part of a ships shield at a time. Also im not sure but Ive heard that multiple shield gen hardpoints do not work as taking out only one takes down the whole shield. Even so, each model has a limited amount of bones for hardpoints, and using 8 of them for shield gens is kind of a waste
Forces of Corruption works differently than EaW. The Executor, a ship with three shield hardpoints, only loses shields once all three shields are down.
If there Is anyone who after a long time felt like coming back to EAW, How do i add hardpoints to certain areas of ships?
Keep Hardpoints but maybe decrease or remove them on smaller ships! (like fighters and gunboats/corvettes, where they barrely make sense anyway at that large scale battles!^^)
also, as weapons are mostly exposed (except for torpedo/missile tubes) it makes sense that weapons are far easyer to take down than internal systems! ;-)
(Engines should lay somewhere inbetween - so it's mostly easyer to immobilize a ship than to kill it's shield generator - but taking down weapons is still easyer (to put it into scale, as example - a "small" weapon takes 2 proton torpedos to be taken out, a medium 4 and heavy weapons 6! - while engines need at least 24 and a shield gen needs at least 36! = if we stay at 2 protons per fighter per run and have 3 of them makes 6 proton torpedos per run - now you see where this is heading, 4 full runs are needed to take out engines and 6 for shields! - for hangars 12=2 full runs - and everything else just mind about logic and importance of the system! ;-)