And let's not forget something else which is irritatingly vacant from these discussions. ISDs carry sh*tloads of fighters and bombers, whereas the Mon Cal doesn't. The Mon Cal takes up the same population yet cannot accomplish as many tasks as the ISD as it is.
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that the Imperial Star Destroyer and the Mon Calamari Cruiser are not supposed to be even. In terms of Star Wars lore, one ship is the workhorse of a Galactic Empire with vast resources at its disposal. It is designed to outgun and outclass anything except for the bigger Imperial Ships. In terms of game balance...we've come a long way from the days of WarCraft II, where each faction had the same units in different colors. That's why boosting the armament of the Mon Cal or giving the cruiser a hangar are poor and unimaginitive solutions to this percieved balance problem.

Ship......................Empire..............Reb. ..............ZC
Corvette...............Tartan..............Corvett e......Crusader
Frigate.................Acclam..............Neb B..........Int IV
Cruiser/Hvy Frig.......VSD.................Ass Frig.......Vengeance
Capital....................ISD................MC.. ............Keldabe
You've forgotten that the Rebellion actually has two corvette-class ships, and the gunship isn't half bad against capital ships. I've taken out improperly supported Star Destroyers (including Piett) with a two- to three-gunship wolfpack, using the boost engines ability to rocket into the ISD's blind spot and then pummel its engines and other hardpoints with shield-piercing concussion missiles. I remember a thread a while back about how incredibly effective gunship wolfpacks could be. That's the sort of thing the Rebels are supposed to be able to do to fight off Imperial capital ships--not field a ship that is the exact equivalent of the Star Destroyer. The way I look at it is this: it's the job of the Rebel gunships, missile cruisers, and bombers to take out Imperial capital ships, and the job of Rebel capital ships to keep the fighter-killers and corvette-killers off of the bombers and gunships. Once the Imperial capital ships are mauled, then you can move in with the Mon Cals and blast them out of space. But I like my ships coming back in one piece, so I try to keep each ship engaged with enemies it will be more likely to beat that throwing each ship against an adversary in the same class.

That's another thing people don't seem to be taking into account in this debate: it's very unlikely that battles will consist of one Mon Cal against one Star Destroyer. Both ships are likely to be part of a larger fleet.

Edit regarding the Aggressor: I wouldn't have any problems with this ship if its turbolasers were reduced to laser cannons, and its main weapon firing arc was reduced a bit. Then it would play a role like the ion frigates in Homeworld: devastatingly effective if you let it get into line, but if you can outmaneuver it, it's a sitting duck.

Responding to Tears of Isha:

Ya pretty much nailed what I was gonna say and what i've already said. I only hope the designers are tuning in and taking note of what is being said so the proper adjustments can be made.

And Valter, there's your answer to 'what advantages could there possibly be to adding a hangar for MonCals'. Tears of Isha pretty much nailed it for what I said before - since the ISD is stronger now and the Rebels are hindered by the population cap and don't have the same advantage as before, a Hangar is needed.

I'm getting sick of pointing this out - I can't just fill up the extra credits with more bombers because there is something that everyone here seems to be willfully forgetting - it means I have to spend more population on extra units. Accusing rebel players of asking for 'ridiculous buffing' of MCs while you are essentially asking for units that require less population to do more doesn't exactly make you sound like you want balance.

And let's not forget something else which is irritatingly vacant from these discussions. ISDs carry sh*tloads of fighters and bombers, whereas the Mon Cal doesn't. The Mon Cal takes up the same population yet cannot accomplish as many tasks as the ISD as it is.
Well, you shouldn't forget that the Rebels have a pop cap of 25 while an Imp has a pop cap of 20 - that's supposed to balance out the pop-cap free fighters



Now the imperials have not only been given some excellent new fighter designs (which all but nullify any advantage the rebels had there - Imperials now can deploy both elite fighters than can accomplish stuff B-Wings and A-Wings can't *and* can deploy tonnes of cannon fodder *at the same time*) but their also getting upgrades to their cruisers too - so the rebels will literally be weak on both fronts. Yet you claim any cruiser buffs for the Rebels is ridiculous.

No it isn't. It's for balance.



Still, an Imp player normally has to pay more money and pop cap (relatively, as they pay 1/20 of their cap instead of 1/25 ) for a fighter unit. The free fighters the Imps get are normally worse than their rebel counterparts, and the hangar bay of a cap ship can be destroyed relatively fast, rendering all fighters that have not yet been spawned obsolete.



You've forgotten that the Rebellion actually has two corvette-class ships, and the gunship isn't half bad against capital ships.
In that case I am truly wondering what's supposed to be the counter to gunships - I mean they own fighters, bombers, vettes, Broadsides and seemingly are even able to own cap ships - the hell?:¬:

The way I look at it is this: it's the job of the Rebel gunships, missile cruisers, and bombers to take out Imperial capital ships, and the job of Rebel capital ships to keep the fighter-killers and corvette-killers off of the bombers and gunships. Once the Imperial capital ships are mauled, then you can move in with the Mon Cals and blast them out of space. But I like my ships coming back in one piece, so I try to keep each ship engaged with enemies it will be more likely to beat that throwing each ship against an adversary in the same class.

Edit regarding the Aggressor: I wouldn't have any problems with this ship if its turbolasers were reduced to laser cannons, and its main weapon firing arc was reduced a bit.


First paragraph, that's what I think it should be more like, and that's just the way I used my gunships! (once I built a fleet of gunships and sent it to an enemy planet in an online game, I dont' think he liked the 150 gunships I sent him lol)

Second paragraph, I wouldn't mind having it like that, except for the main weapon part maybe.

Good idea.

Well, you shouldn't forget that the Rebels have a pop cap of 25 while an Imp has a pop cap of 20 - that's supposed to balance out the pop-cap free fighters




Still, an Imp player normally has to pay more money and pop cap (relatively, as they pay 1/20 of their cap instead of 1/25 ) for a fighter unit. The free fighters the Imps get are normally worse than their rebel counterparts, and the hangar bay of a cap ship can be destroyed relatively fast, rendering all fighters that have not yet been spawned obsolete.


In that case I am truly wondering what's supposed to be the counter to gunships - I mean they own fighters, bombers, vettes, Broadsides and seemingly are even able to own cap ships - the hell?:¬:

Again, let's consider the fact that Imperials spew out fighters and bombers for FREE - which is normally about 3 squadrons per Capital Ship. This is FAR more than the Rebels could match in fighter strength if they had the same grade and amount of capital ships in the battle.

Think about it. 20 Pop. Cap would get you 5 ISDs, including 15 squadrons of fighters (if we are counting 1 ISD + 2 Squadrons of fighters and 1 bomber squadron). Therefore, the Rebels with a Pop. Cap of 25 would potentially have either 6 MonCals and 1 Fighter Squadron (through hyperspacing in) or 5 MonCals and 5 Fighter squadrons, a significant disadvantage in my eyes.

Therefore, with a now STRONGER ISD, and a significant advantage in fighter squadrons already, I believe there is an imbalance. Explain to me why if you don't agree cos it seems pretty clear to me. Let's also remember that the quantity of TIEs per unit cap (depending on the TIE model) is generally also higher than the equivalent Rebel fighters for that unit cap. e.g. 5 X-Wings, 7 TIE Fighters etc.

Also, (you will have seen us all arguing) that Rebel fighters are now distinctly worse than the Imperial equivalent. ISDs are now outfitted with TIE Interceptors and not TIE Fighters - and Interceptors are technically better than X-Wings. Plus, adding in the appearance of TIE Defenders and TIE Phantoms, it adds to the imbalance.

Finally, the counter to Gunships are Acclamators, Victories and any other capital ship. I don't find that they own capital ships, and fighters they only cause a certain amount of damage, but are nonetheless useful for support.

Tears I can understand that you want a measurable or tangible advantage for the MC but why does it need an advantage at all? I like the inclusion of hangers in mods to all reb ships but the devs didnt put them in and we won't see them. Including them would make the reb ships much more expensive which would be a balance headache in itself. Valid arguments by both you and Shadow about the effectiveness of the MCs usefulness for its cap. Wen Shadow put it the way he did with the amount of fighters you get it does look bad but one could counter this by saying its cheaper and quicker to build than a MC plus at YertL pointed out the rebs get a bigger cap. Besides, has anyone played a serious game against a human where it degenerated into an all out capital ship brawl? The MC can't be the capital ship "par excellence" (behind the Keldabe ;P) because its simply not in keeping with canon. The ISD in this game is a shadow of what it should be. Im not bitching about it because I understand the reason behind it, but it certainly deserved to be better than the MC. The ships are almost equal so I dont understand the fuss. I listed the new HPs for the two, the ISD fires less pulses than an MC but does *slightly* more damage (MC ion:10, TL:28 / ISD ion: 12 TL:24). The damage difference is a puny **40** in favour of the ISD. And compare the two special abilities!! The boost shields basically recharges the MCs shields...one hell of an advantage. The fact is, if you get the jump on an ISD and hit it in the flank IT IS DEAD! I tested multiple ISDs vs multiple MCs and the MCs wipe the floor with the ISDs. In anything other than one on one the ISD will lose; even then if you know what you are doing with the MC you can still defeat the ISD comfortably. The only thing you have to worry about is bombers, which corvettes take care of easily, and as Wedge pointed out about gunships, this is the essence of the game....its not just about MCs vs ISDs. If you dont mix your forces you generally die. You might have to use more of your pop cap some time to defeat an enemy but you can make that up in other ways. Micro managing the right units at the right time can also turn the battle. These are things you just cant factor into stats. So the ISD gets fighters and bombers...its always a gamble for the ISD what to do with them. Should they make use of these units and throw them into battle or keep them local to defend the ISD? HHmm..A-wing lure ability anyone?

The Imperial uber fighters are useful but too expensive when they can still be slaughtered by a corvette. You only get three fighters per sqdn. To outnumber a rebel sqdn you would have to buy two, which would mean 2 pop cap and 750 for phantoms and 1600 for Defenders. I do think the rebels have lost the fighter edge with the roll out of interceptors. Lets face it, fighters have never been very good and as important as fighters are to the rebs they are now facing much deadlier opponents. The Xwing, is now the weakest standard fighter of the three factions. That is a bit harsh. Fair enough interceptors cost more but there was no cost increase to ships which carry fighters. I guess this just makes Awings and corvettes even more important. If there was to be improvements made to the rebs it should be to the starfighters. But I will say rebel starfighters are rather deadly when used en masse.

As for the Aggressor I dont mind it, even if it has TLs, because that makes it vulnerable to bombers. A couple of runs and its lost its special weapon and that is 4000 odd wasted. Both rebs and imps only get very weak, expensive but useful frigates and that is what I feel is odd. @ Wedge, no I didnt forget the gunship but I didnt include it since it has no real comparison in the other factions. Each faction seems to get its own extra ship of a different class, rebs get a corvette, imps get a frigate and zc get a cap ship. Thats the only way I can see it. The loss of a missile corvette for the ZC is made up for it seems by the Aggressor as well.

Responding to Tears of Isha:

Ya pretty much nailed what I was gonna say and what i've already said. I only hope the designers are tuning in and taking note of what is being said so the proper adjustments can be made.

And Valter, there's your answer to 'what advantages could there possibly be to adding a hangar for MonCals'. Tears of Isha pretty much nailed it for what I said before - since the ISD is stronger now and the Rebels are hindered by the population cap and don't have the same advantage as before, a Hangar is needed.

Giving the Mon Cal's a hangar bay will not rebalance the game but will instead further damage the already non-existent balance of the game. Dozens of squadrons of X-wings and Y-wings with 5-6 Mon Cals? Yeah, that's a perfect balance solution...

(I would go into a long drawn out argument but Rust_Lord has already said what I would have said)

Eh....I've read this thread and I seriously don't know what the gripe is about. The frustration should be for the stupidly imbalanced Consortium. I've never had a problem as Rebels when facing Imps. I pretty much can bet that most of you guys probably spam Mon Cal cruisers and leave no room for other ships which leaves you guys S.O.L. in a lot of fights. The key to winning as rebs isn't to spam Mon Cals as you would with ISD with Imps, you need to evenly distribute your fighters, frigates, corvettes, etc.

Rebs and Imps are fine and with the coming increase in the efficiency of the fighters of the Alliance it should prove to be more balanced Imp vs. Reb. I seriously can't see how many of you are have gripes about the Mon Cals.....they have an ability that boosts all their shields straight back up ffs.....

Consortium however.....is something completely different. I think the focus should be primarily on them more so on existing rebel and imperial space units. You also have to take into consideration ground combat which Consortium is also pretty imbalanced with.

Tears I can understand that you want a measurable or tangible advantage for the MC but why does it need an advantage at all?


That's simple. You're using the Mon Cal's maneuverability as justifcation for the ISD to be upgraded. If the Maneuverability provides no specific advantage then your argument for upgrades is meaningless. Should the ISd be made better because the Mon Cal has.... more engine nozzles? A funny MC commander voice? If it doesn't do anything then why do you need the upgrades in the first place?


I like the inclusion of hangers in mods to all reb ships but the devs didnt put them in and we won't see them. Including them would make the reb ships much more expensive which would be a balance headache in itself.


Hangars are Shadow's thing - I'm not a massive fan of them. I don't really want to change the MC's use in the fleet, but I do want it to remain competitive. At the mo, it's good against ISDs and pathetic against Keldabes. The way things are going it sounds like Petro are on a mssion to make the rebels generally pathetic. Great for canon, rubbish for gameplay.


Valid arguments by both you and Shadow about the effectiveness of the MCs usefulness for its cap. Wen Shadow put it the way he did with the amount of fighters you get it does look bad but one could counter this by saying its cheaper and quicker to build than a MC plus at YertL pointed out the rebs get a bigger cap.


My point is that the cap is not big enough. 5 population nets me 5 fighters or bombers. A single ISD will spit that out 3 times over without using any population other than it's own. Your point would have some grounding if rebel fighters were better than Imperial counterparts, as in EaW, but they are quite obviously not now. The X-Wing is worse than any other standard fighter in the game - so effectively I'm paying twice the poulation for a fighter which is nowhere near as effective.

That isn't balanced at all.


Besides, has anyone played a serious game against a human where it degenerated into an all out capital ship brawl? The MC can't be the capital ship "par excellence" (behind the Keldabe ;P) because its simply not in keeping with canon.


Two points:

It's a fact in many of the books (like the technical manuals and things) that, while the Mon Cal was smaller and less well armed than the ISD, it's superior maneverability, redundant shields and far better piloting made it almost equal to the ISD.

-and-

Don't start using canon as a main argument. If canon was being equally upheld X-Wings would be the rough equivalent of Star Vipers, B-Wings would have more firepower than tartans, A-Wings would be significantly faster than anything in space (Defender included) and Rebel commanders would have the option of calling down Turbolaser strikes if they thought it needed. All of this is simply not in FoC. You can't just pick and choose what canon you like and leave out the rest.


The ISD in this game is a shadow of what it should be. Im not bitching about it because I understand the reason behind it, but it certainly deserved to be better than the MC. The ships are almost equal so I dont understand the fuss.


If the ships are almost equal, why are *you* making fuss? In fact, why are you even asking for upgrades?


The boost shields basically recharges the MCs shields...one hell of an advantage.


Yes. That's intended to make up for less damage, less hitpoints and no hangar.


The fact is, if you get the jump on an ISD and hit it in the flank IT IS DEAD! I tested multiple ISDs vs multiple MCs and the MCs wipe the floor with the ISDs. In anything other than one on one the ISD will lose; even then if you know what you are doing with the MC you can still defeat the ISD comfortably. The only thing you have to worry about is bombers, which corvettes take care of easily, and as Wedge pointed out about gunships, this is the essence of the game....its not just about MCs vs ISDs. If you dont mix your forces you generally die.


I'm really nt sure what point you're trying to make here. That tactic you've just mentioned would simply not work - A Mon Cal would never be able to get into that postition unless all of the Space around it was totally empty, which is obviously quite rare. And it'll never manage to simply 'insta-kill' an ISD unless the thing is disabled by Ion Cannon. It's too heavily armoured for that.

To be honest it sounds like you expect ISDs to be able to take on whole fleets. That's fine - give it a population cost of 10 and it'll be alright. So far I would have to use a MC, enough X-Wings/A-Wings to hold back the Interceptors and Bombers (let's say 2-3) and plenty of gunships. That's about 9 population to handle a 4 population cruiser. Do you honestly expect me to take your argument seriously with stats like that?


You might have to use more of your pop cap some time to defeat an enemy but you can make that up in other ways. Micro managing the right units at the right time can also turn the battle. These are things you just cant factor into stats. So the ISD gets fighters and bombers...its always a gamble for the ISD what to do with them. Should they make use of these units and throw them into battle or keep them local to defend the ISD? HHmm..A-wing lure ability anyone?


You see, this is something I just don't get. There seems to be this weird belief amongst non-Rebel plyers that the Rebels have this mysterious advantage, but it's so nebulous that no-one can actaully say what it is. I'm supposed to defeat superior units that cost less using.... micromanagement? Are you saying that it *isn't* a gamble with Rebel ships? If I lose a squadron then my only response is to bring one in from Hyperspace that I've hopefully kept there - the Imperials simply get a free replacement however many times for better fighters.

Tactics have their place but trying to insinuate that Imperial players need better units to compete with rebel genius is the weakest argument I've ever heard. In fact, it's desperate.


The Imperial uber fighters are useful but too expensive when they can still be slaughtered by a corvette. You only get three fighters per sqdn. To outnumber a rebel sqdn you would have to buy two, which would mean 2 pop cap and 750 for phantoms and 1600 for Defenders.


I'm not getting your argument here - you're telling me to use tactics to win but now you're complaining you need to use tactics and micromanagement to use them effectively? They are that price because you're getting everything. The Defenders are great fighters that can easily double as a fighter and a bomber. When you back that up with whatever disposables your cruisers have spit out (and let's not forget Interceptors leave X-Wings trailing) surely you can see why you're having to pay through the nose for having the best of both worlds.


I do think the rebels have lost the fighter edge with the roll out of interceptors. Lets face it, fighters have never been very good and as important as fighters are to the rebs they are now facing much deadlier opponents. The Xwing, is now the weakest standard fighter of the three factions. That is a bit harsh. Fair enough interceptors cost more but there was no cost increase to ships which carry fighters. I guess this just makes Awings and corvettes even more important. If there was to be improvements made to the rebs it should be to the starfighters. But I will say rebel starfighters are rather deadly when used en masse.


Neither of these tactics you've mentioned here are even approaching canon - they are the exact opposite. Rebels did not send fighters en-masse. Rebels did not rely on Corvettes to handle fighters, And Rebels certainly did not have enough A-Wings to handle everything using them.
As I said before, if you're going to use Canon to support your argument, then it's *all* the canon, not just the bits beneficial to you.


As for the Aggressor I dont mind it, even if it has TLs, because that makes it vulnerable to bombers. A couple of runs and its lost its special weapon and that is 4000 odd wasted. Both rebs and imps only get very weak, expensive but useful frigates and that is what I feel is odd. @ Wedge, no I didnt forget the gunship but I didnt include it since it has no real comparison in the other factions. Each faction seems to get its own extra ship of a different class, rebs get a corvette, imps get a frigate and zc get a cap ship. Thats the only way I can see it. The loss of a missile corvette for the ZC is made up for it seems by the Aggressor as well.

Whatever. I've had enough of the ZC anyway. They've got no flavour - thay just get the biggest guns and the best upgrades for nowt. I'm guessing they were meant for new players.
I'm half-expecting the patch will have all manner of wonderful upgrades for the ZC - perhaps a Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch for Zann, it just allows him to kill verything on the map every 30 seconds? Maybe turbo-spinach for the Vengance which boosts it's already massive Hitpoints up to ISD level? How about inflatable Eclipses for ZC space stations - just deply them and voila! An instant superlaser platform! Whoo hoo!

*sigh*...

Eh....I've read this thread and I seriously don't know what the gripe is about. The frustration should be for the stupidly imbalanced Consortium. I've never had a problem as Rebels when facing Imps. I pretty much can bet that most of you guys probably spam Mon Cal cruisers and leave no room for other ships which leaves you guys S.O.L. in a lot of fights. The key to winning as rebs isn't to spam Mon Cals as you would with ISD with Imps, you need to evenly distribute your fighters, frigates, corvettes, etc.

Rebs and Imps are fine and with the coming increase in the efficiency of the fighters of the Alliance it should prove to be more balanced Imp vs. Reb. I seriously can't see how many of you are have gripes about the Mon Cals.....they have an ability that boosts all their shields straight back up ffs.....

Consortium however.....is something completely different. I think the focus should be primarily on them more so on existing rebel and imperial space units. You also have to take into consideration ground combat which Consortium is also pretty imbalanced with.

Nah we don't, we use all ships in the battle for the right roles - after all, it's nice to see a fully diverse Rebel Fleet in action. However, I can say that I have tried to use 6 Mon Cals in a battle with 1 Hero and it isn't very useful since there are no fighters (**back to fighters argument**).

We all hate the Consortium...that's a given already and we've closed that argument earlier - so now the argument shifts to this...

Giving the Mon Cal's a hangar bay will not rebalance the game but will instead further damage the already non-existent balance of the game. Dozens of squadrons of X-wings and Y-wings with 5-6 Mon Cals? Yeah, that's a perfect balance solution...

(I would go into a long drawn out argument but Rust_Lord has already said what I would have said)

There wouldn't be a significant number of Squadrons to match ISDs. Even if MonCals had 1 Squadron of replenishable A-Wings that would still be good enough to make the MonCal a bit more competitive without spamming fighters.

It's obvious that we won't agree on giving the MC a Hangar. That's fine. However, since i've already shown a gap between the support the ISD has (and we can also now see that its stronger) and the fact that MonCals have no support due to the fact that they have no hangar, I would like to introduce another option:

What if a MonCal got a laser cannon or something which allows it to deal with fighters at least a little bit. Since you guys would argue that would mean its better armed than an ISD maybe the developers could make it ineffective vs. Capital Ships? But at least something to make the MonCal hold its own if say at any point in time its by itself and say an ISD hyperspaces in with squadrons of fighters. A laser cannon or two would at least give it a minimal edge against fighters. Even if the MonCal got no weapon or armour boost, having one or two laser cannons to deal with fighters would make them tehnically equal with ISDs again.

If you guys also want to argue 'well then we should give an ISD a laser cannon as well' - i don't mind that, as long as you give a MonCal either a better one to deal with fighters, or two of the same strength at that. Though i'd still be satisfied if they both got equal strength cannons anyway.

The other thing I would certainly suggest (and i'm sure we all agree with this) is making the X-Wing much stronger.

Rust_Lord, you say that the ISD is a shadow of its true self in canon - well the same can be said about X-Wings. And since the ISD is at least getting somewhat of a boost, we need to give a boost to X-Wings. It's the most useless fighter in the game now. Why would you build X-Wings (which can only take on TIE Fighters and not Interceptors or better) when you can build A-Wings or B-Wings for fighter duty and capital ship runs. It needs to be better shielded and armed, and do more damage, if not made faster.


Two points:

It's a fact in many of the books (like the technical manuals and things) that, while the Mon Cal was smaller and less well armed than the ISD, it's superior maneverability, redundant shields and far better piloting made it almost equal to the ISD.

-and-

Don't start using canon as a main argument. If canon was being equally upheld X-Wings would be the rough equivalent of Star Vipers, B-Wings would have more firepower than tartans, A-Wings would be significantly faster than anything in space (Defender included) and Rebel commanders would have the option of calling down Turbolaser strikes if they thought it needed. All of this is simply not in FoC. You can't just pick and choose what canon you like and leave out the rest.

The fact is, if you get the jump on an ISD and hit it in the flank IT IS DEAD! I tested multiple ISDs vs multiple MCs and the MCs wipe the floor with the ISDs. In anything other than one on one the ISD will lose; even then if you know what you are doing with the MC you can still defeat the ISD comfortably.

I do see that MonCals are faster than ISDs - but that is only a marginal speed difference in my opinion. The fact of the matter is, when you start a space skirmish both Capital Ships start at opposite sides of the map and have to move towards each other. The speed advantage would only be significant if it was noticeable, but at the moment its a *slight* speed advantage and is still countered by the range of fire from the ISD.

Now, if the speed of a MonCal was changed to something closer (but not equal) to that of an MC Frigate, i'd be more willing to accept your argument. Either way, I do believe that the MonCal needs a speed boost; and giving it a much increased speed boost would liken it more to Tears' argument about its speed ability compared to an ISD in canon. THAT would translate into a recognizable and acknowledgeable ability/advantage in my opinion.

And again, I do agree with Tears' argument. If canon is included we must consider all factors, not the ones we agree with - so there is balance. Either by mentioning counters, disadvantages, or something at least...

its not just about MCs vs ISDs. If you dont mix your forces you generally die. You might have to use more of your pop cap some time to defeat an enemy but you can make that up in other ways.

Yeah we do understand that its not just about MCs vs ISDs. There's more to a battle than that. But it comes down to just a little bit more than that. There is the inclusion of fighters which the ISD has the advantage of. And that's where we are complaining since the ISD has better fighters the Rebel fighters should be upgraded, not nerfed; so the ones you do hyperspace in are actually useful.

Furthermore, 4 pop. cap spaces is a large investment for a unit: especially since Petroglyph have decided to keep the pop. caps at 20 and 25 respectively. These issues would be somewhat less of a problem if there was a larger pop. cap or simply none at all (but a larger, much larger pop. cap would be preferably even though its killer on a low spec system).

Therefore, since there is a low pop. cap I would at least like to get the satisfactory performance out of a unit for the amount of pop. cap and credits i'm spending on it.

It's kinda weird that it's still about the mon cal vs the star destroyer after that argument seemed to be somewhat settled a few times. Isn't the big problem still the shieldless zc cruiser which can take out most of the weapons on one side of an isd or mc pretty easily?

It's kinda weird that it's still about the mon cal vs the star destroyer after that argument seemed to be somewhat settled a few times. Isn't the big problem still the shieldless zc cruiser which can take out most of the weapons on one side of an isd or mc pretty easily?

The argument has flared up again as the ISD is being upgraded in the patch. We won't even bother discussing ZC ships as they are so totally unbalanced...

OK, just a quick reminder for everyone:
When arguing about the ISDs "free fighters", please consider that an Imp player has to pay an additional 1900 credits for these fighters (Mon Cal 4000 Credits, ISD 5900 credits (in GC)) and these "free fighters" can be gone in 1 bombing run which disables the hangar bay.
Now if you compare an ISD without fighters, a Mon Cal IMO wins by far, considering that it has the far superior special ability and no shield hardpoint.
You wouldn't want a ship to be equal to one that costs 2/3 of it, would you?

IMO a Mon Cal with 2 squadrons of X-Wings/A-Wings and 2 bomber squadrons (wich still costs only 5020-5200 credits, thus less than an ISD) would easily win against an ISD, as the bombers could quickly disable hangar bay & shields, making the ISD a sitting duck (more or less :p )

The only valid argument I see is the pop cap one (imps can bring in 5 ISDs whereas a reb player can only bring in 5 MCs and 5 fighter/bomber squadrons), however because of the example mentioned above and the fact that it's the other way around with all non-cap craft (e.g. rebs can bring in 12 vettes /25 squads of fighters/bombers while an imp player can only bring in 10 vettes/20 fighter/bomber squads), I find that relatively balanced as well.

IMO rebs still have a slight advantage in space - but that's of course depending on the scenario

OK, just a quick reminder for everyone:
When arguing about the ISDs "free fighters", please consider that an Imp player has to pay an additional 1900 credits for these fighters (Mon Cal 4000 Credits, ISD 5900 credits (in GC)) and these "free fighters" can be gone in 1 bombing run which disables the hangar bay.



This point is meaningless. First of all, more credits doesn't really mean there is a need for changes. Jack the price up on the Mon Cal for all I care. I'd much rather pay lots for excellent fighters than simply do TIE-style tactics of making swarms.
When people are talking about free fighters, we obviously aren't meaning credit-free. We mean they don't cost any population - which in itself is an excellent advantage. And don't bother arguing about how they disappear if the hangar bay goes. That's just as daft as arguing the Keldabe's WTFPWNING shield leech is completely balanced since that can be taken out too. If you're using basic tactics that imperial players seem to be very fond of reminding us rebel players about, taking down the hangar isn't as easy as you make it out to be.


Now if you compare an ISD without fighters, a Mon Cal IMO wins by far, considering that it has the far superior special ability and no shield hardpoint.
You wouldn't want a ship to be equal to one that costs 2/3 of it, would you?


I fail to see what relevance this point has. The imperial players made the mistake in the first place of doing this - I pointed out the fighters are a massive advantage.


IMO a Mon Cal with 2 squadrons of X-Wings/A-Wings and 2 bomber squadrons (wich still costs only 5020-5200 credits, thus less than an ISD) would easily win against an ISD, as the bombers could quickly disable hangar bay & shields, making the ISD a sitting duck (more or less :p )


It would also mean that I'd forced to use twice the population of the ISD to combat it itself. Considering that I'm using twice the forces to take it down, I *should* be able to take it down easily. Or is that not balanced in your opinion? Shoudl I only ever be able to win if I outnumber them 2:1?

Give me a break.


The only valid argument I see is the pop cap one (imps can bring in 5 ISDs whereas a reb player can only bring in 5 MCs and 5 fighter/bomber squadrons), however because of the example mentioned above and the fact that it's the other way around with all non-cap craft (e.g. rebs can bring in 12 vettes /25 squads of fighters/bombers while an imp player can only bring in 10 vettes/20 fighter/bomber squads), I find that relatively balanced as well.


Look, if you're going to use spaz tactics like this then that's your business, but if you're not going to bring in cruiser support than that's your fault. Don't base requests for unit upgrades on simply the fact that you use weird fleets.

What in christ's name am I going to do with 25 fighters and 12 corvettes? How is that an advantage? 2 Keldabes and some StarVipers would eat them alive.


IMO rebs still have a slight advantage in space - but that's of course depending on the scenario

The rebels get to use incapable fighters combined with soon-to-be-outmoded cruisers. Slight advantage? What tosh.

OK, just a quick reminder for everyone:
When arguing about the ISDs "free fighters", please consider that an Imp player has to pay an additional 1900 credits for these fighters (Mon Cal 4000 Credits, ISD 5900 credits (in GC)) and these "free fighters" can be gone in 1 bombing run which disables the hangar bay.
Now if you compare an ISD without fighters, a Mon Cal IMO wins by far, considering that it has the far superior special ability and no shield hardpoint.
You wouldn't want a ship to be equal to one that costs 2/3 of it, would you?

Like Tears said, we are talking about 'free' fighters as in 'free' population cap. No matter if you pay for em upon building, the fact is there's an abundance of them being emitted from the hangar during the course of a battle.

And the point of fighters being destroyed in 1 bombing run - they replenish! So it isn't really a valid argument. Plus, taking down the Hangar of an ISD would mean taking down the shields first if you don't have bombers on hand. And bringing in bombers to take out the Hangar bay requires a pop. cap point (for 1 set- if that set can even destroy the Hangar in 1 run before being destroyed), something that the Imperials don't required because they get bombers for FREE.

I don't mind paying extra for a MonCal as long as its built adequately to at least marginally hold its own against an ISD AND its fighters and bombers.

We never said compare the ISD to the MonCal without fighters, it's not the same as if you are comparing the four major heroes (Ackbar, Piett, Thrawn, Zann) like they did on Gamespot because it's not that type of comparison. The entire reason we are making arguments is because the ISDs special ability was spawning fighters, and being at an armour-point disadvantage to the MC, and now its stronger than an MC armour-wise which negates the MC's advantage.

IMO a Mon Cal with 2 squadrons of X-Wings/A-Wings and 2 bomber squadrons (wich still costs only 5020-5200 credits, thus less than an ISD) would easily win against an ISD, as the bombers could quickly disable hangar bay & shields, making the ISD a sitting duck (more or less )

I don't recall anybody asking, including me, for that large an amount of fighters to complement a MonCal. That's even more fighters than an ISD gets. What I said was to get a minimum of 1 Squadron of A-Wings or 1 Squadron of X-Wings and 1 Squadron of Y-Wings (B-Wings for the Home One). This would mean that the MonCal is still at a singular disadvantage in battling an ISD if it uses its fighters wastefully. Since there is only one attack squadron you would have to use them wisely.

However, my other alternative is still the laser cannons, which doesn't cause imbalance if applied to both cruisers and would give the MonCal its edge, and at the same time preserve the overall superiority of the ISD.

The only valid argument I see is the pop cap one (imps can bring in 5 ISDs whereas a reb player can only bring in 5 MCs and 5 fighter/bomber squadrons), however because of the example mentioned above and the fact that it's the other way around with all non-cap craft (e.g. rebs can bring in 12 vettes /25 squads of fighters/bombers while an imp player can only bring in 10 vettes/20 fighter/bomber squads), I find that relatively balanced as well.

While an interesting comparison, I don't think anybody who knows what they are doing would use 25 fighters only or 12 Corvettes. You'd get slaughtered by the larger capital ships for the most part, and you can't really account that the enemy wouldn't bring in stronger ships against you once their pop. cap frees up.


By the way everyone, what are your thoughts about the laser cannon idea?

Look, if you're going to use spaz tactics like this then that's your business, but if you're not going to bring in cruiser support than that's your fault. Don't base requests for unit upgrades on simply the fact that you use weird fleets.
As I pointed out before, in this game you're unlikely ever to see a battle with only Star Destroyers against only Calamari Cruisers. The two units can't be lifted out of their member fleets and counted against each other one on one. Depending on the makeup and tactical usage of their support fleets, TearsOfIsha might be right or YertyL might be right.

Here's a wacky idea: why don't you try the patch, or make the modifications in XML yourself, and try it out? And when I say "try it out," I don't mean, "pit a single Mon Cal against a single ISD and see who wins." Maybe this modification has a profound effect on game balance when other units are counted in as well.

Wedge you are absolutely right. You really can’t judge the ships effect on the game overall by comparing them separately/against each other but you know you can compare the two against each other and this is why Tears and Shadow are so upset.

I have made the mods to the xmls and seen how it plays…I wrote about it elsewhere. It’s actually pretty good. Keldabes loose a lot of teeth by greatly reducing ion/MD ROF and combined with making MD a lot less accurate against fighters, they are not as well rounded anymore….the way a cap ship should be.

@ Tears: Some of your replies to quotes simply have little to do with what I or YertyL have said and more to do with twisting what is said to further your own agenda. You criticised YertyL about the illustration he gave about pop cap and call his *comparison* stupid tactics but you didn’t give any real or constructive answer for this or any example. You claim either you don’t understand, the point is not relevant or it’s retarded. You just dismiss what you disagree with. At least Shadow offers some ideas and discusses things rationally. Here’s a challenge...Quote me where I said the MCs maneuverability is its advantage and reason for it to be upgraded…You wont find it because all I said was the MC has the maneuverability to get into the ISDs blind spot, which it does. I’ve never advocated that as the reason to upgrade it in this or any other threads. When you’re given facts and figures you choose not to address them but have no answer. You have come on here and griped about how crap the rebs are how lame the MC is, while the MC is *still* stronger than an ISD and before we have got the patch to make the ISD stronger. And by stronger we mean 215 extra HPs spread out over 10 hardpoints and 40 more damage…yeah that is just SO POWERFUL! I prefer Empire in space but I think the MCs are great. I am not out just to make the Empire the most powerful faction, I want to see balance and fairness yet a game that still reflects the SW universe we know. If you can’t use the rebs effectively when the devs think they are good enough to leave as is then I suggest you give the game up. My argument has always been that the ISD has had less HPs and less firepower than the MC which I disagree with. No we can’t have this game totally reflect canon but we can try and keep some semblence of it and the players have posted numerous times before they would like to see the ISD made better. It’s a given that ISDs are the most powerful standard cap ships around in the SW universe (excluding SSDs and EU). That’s what made the rebs victory that much more courageous. There’s a lot of material out there but *none* of it says the MC is better. And you said it yourself the MC was almost equal to the ISD. That obviously means the ISD is better, so why complain when the game is changed to reflect this? It’s obvious you’re a big MC fan but you seem to want it to be clearly superior to the ISD for less cost!? Lay off the crack. Thanks for the prices YertyL; the cost of the two craft says it all and your reasoning is sound.

The fact is the MC has better stats than the ISD as far as maneuverability therefore this is an advantage (albeit a small one); it has twice the thrust and can react and change direction quicker. I am surprised Shadow if you bring in cap ships to slowly cruise across the game area...dont you scout? Hypering in cap ships behind an enemy force is a fave tactic of mine. It forces the enemy to break formation to deal with the it.

Here a quick reply to the things raised….hope you have a cup of coffee handy :P

*The MC is “good against ISDs but pathetic against Keldabes” = *Everything* is pathetic against Keldabes at the moment but the changes make it better. And if the MC is good against ISDs what the hell are you complaining about and wanting it buffed for?
*You say the pop cap isn’t big enough for the rebs? Then what pop cap do you think is reasonable? Should the rebs get extra pop cap that can only be filled by starfighters? Keep in mind if you raised it to 30 you would have 50% more cap than the Empire. Bye Bye balance.
*If you think the Xwing is now crap (which I agree) then buy Awings. They still shred Imp fighters.
*”A-Wings would be significantly faster than anything in space (Defender included)”= Bullcrap. Where are these stats from? The Awing has and speed of 120 and the Defender has 156. Even in XWA with ships toned down the defender was faster. The defenders speed has been cut in the patch and while disappointing its prolly fair.
*”If the ships are almost equal, why are *you* making fuss? In fact, why are you even asking for upgrades?” = Dood, the ISD advocates if I can call them that did not start this. Check the beginning of this thread. I stated the change in stats and then Shadow initially and then yourself wanted the MC buffed. Read your own posts again! We have discussed ISD upgrades in other threads and Petro have listened (AMEN)… Although the changes are very minimal.
*(on shield recharge) “Yes. That's intended to make up for less damage, less hitpoints and no hangar.” = *shakes head*… read the HPs and damage “advantage” above. I would have gladly traded these increases to get shield boost for the ISD. Then you would have something to really whinge about.
*”To be honest it sounds like you expect ISDs to be able to take on whole fleets.” = When I have said you can kill an ISD with one MC used correctly? Are you even reading my posts? Personally I would like to see that, and have even fewer ISDs in the game after all in the Imperial order of battle an ISD is equivalent to a line of ordinary cruisers itself; but this will never happen and I’m not fussed.
*”I'm supposed to defeat superior units that cost less using.... micromanagement?” = my point was a general point about the game, not specific to the rebel faction. And if you play the game I am sure you know that ISDs actually cost more than MCs and in skirmish Interceptors cost more than Xwings. Relax, you are not being victimized…they aren’t coming for you, its okay!
*”Tactics have their place but trying to insinuate that Imperial players need better units to compete with rebel genius is the weakest argument I've ever heard. In fact, it's desperate.” = I have never stated or insinuated this. You must be having delusions because I don’t know how you drew this conclusion from what I wrote. Tactics and MM applies to all sides, even the ZC.
*Your whole paragraph about what I said about the Imp uber fighters makes no sense. Again I don’t know how you thought I was complaining about needing to use tactics when using these fighters. Tactics were never mentioned. Someone was winging about Rebels getting 5 fighters per sdqn when Imps get 7. I was pointing out this is not true with the uber fighters and how much it would cost to outnumber a rebel sqdn…not to mention 2 sdqns are 1/10 of your total pop cap.
*”Rebels did not send fighters en-masse.” = They relied on fighters more than they did cap ships that’s for damn sure.
*As I said before, if you're going to use Canon to support your argument, then it's *all* the canon, not just the bits beneficial to you. = Hhmm gee then why do you think I want to see an improvement to the reb fighters?? I agree with you Shadow! Boost the Xwings shields. It’s okay in all other areas.
*Shadow I only bring in my cap ships on my side of the map if my star base is under siege. They are too slow to cross the map so I move faster units as far as I can until they engage the enemy then I bring the bigger ships in and in advantageous positions.

Shadow I liked your most recent post. Well argued especially this
“And the point of fighters being destroyed in 1 bombing run - they replenish! So it isn't really a valid argument. Plus, taking down the Hangar of an ISD would mean taking down the shields first if you don't have bombers on hand. And bringing in bombers to take out the Hangar bay requires a pop. cap point (for 1 set- if that set can even destroy the Hangar in 1 run before being destroyed), something that the Imperials don't required because they get bombers for FREE.”

It isn’t hard to take out a hanger bay but yes it’s going to use pop cap to do it. I still think that is why the rebs get a greater pop cap. You can either invest in a corvette or Awings that will intercept bombers, seeing as money is not an issue. You only have to worry about the interceptors but BOTH Awings and Corvettes have received a hefty speed boost in the patch. I would be making this count. They will out speed interceptors easily now and could pick off a bomber sqdn at will. It is a genuine problem the fighters replenish but while your Awing sdqn is keeping the spawned fighters busy the MC would get the shields on the MC down and take out its hanger…end of fighters.

Other than this, what would you like to see done to the ISD to make it more balanced then; reduced fighter/bomber cap/increase in price. Put forward some ideas please. Does it have to be an improvement to the MC?

Shadow I must admit I don’t like the laser cannon idea, I much prefer your hanger idea with a sdqn of Awings for the Mon Cal, say with 2 more in reserve. This has a potential to be overpowering tho because one Awing sqdn using its special could render *all* sqdns from the ISD ineffective by luring them away for long enough for the MC to paste the ISD. Still Id prefer to see Awings than Xwings coz 1 sdqn of Xwings would be useless against 2 x Int sqdns.

Okay, where do I start lol :roll1:.

Shadow I must admit I don’t like the laser cannon idea, I much prefer your hanger idea with a sdqn of Awings for the Mon Cal, say with 2 more in reserve. This has a potential to be overpowering tho because one Awing sqdn using its special could render *all* sqdns from the ISD ineffective by luring them away for long enough for the MC to paste the ISD. Still Id prefer to see Awings than Xwings coz 1 sdqn of Xwings would be useless against 2 x Int sqdns.

I was thinking about that...and yeah A-Wings do have a significant effect on other fighters. To counter this though, I was more thinking whether it would be wiser to randomise the complement of fighters that an MC gets either with each MC produced or with each new battle it engages in. The Home One would still definitely get B-Wings of course, along with an X-Wing squadron because B-Wings are Ackbar's babies. But for the rest it could be random, what do you think?

Thinking about the laser cannon idea again...it may not seem like a very attractive idea on the onset. But if you think about it further it may make sense aswell. The ISD wouldn't be at a disadvantage to the MC if both got at least 1 cannon placed in the middle of the cruiser halfway between the midpoint and the front - and having a laser cannon would also give both cruisers more of an edge vs. the Consortium. The cannon wouldn't have to be uber-powerful - but something along the lines of the MC Frigate. After all, it works well enough for the MC30 doesn't it?

The fact is the MC has better stats than the ISD as far as maneuverability therefore this is an advantage (albeit a small one); it has twice the thrust and can react and change direction quicker. I am surprised Shadow if you bring in cap ships to slowly cruise across the game area...dont you scout? Hypering in cap ships behind an enemy force is a fave tactic of mine. It forces the enemy to break formation to deal with the it.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough. The way I meant to put it was in terms of a defensive tactical space battle in GC (in both EAW and FoC) and in skirmish where you naturally both start off on opposite sides and there are usually obstacles which do not allow u to hyper in that close to the enemy - and they usually come for you anyway.

Yeah I certainly do use scouting, but I wasn't really considering that. Nonetheless, it is a valid comparison since the scenario could very well happen. I also like using the blind spot ability, but my original tactic when doing scouting is to bring in either a corvette or fighters, fly to the enemy and bring in counters to each enemy ship depending on the positioning, that way there's a shielded force e.g. Neb-B against Corvettes would be put in between Corvettes and fighters, but within range of other smaller capital ships - MC's come in last. I definitely prefer bringing in small heroes for scouting though - Slave I, Falcon and Sundered Heart: those are the best.

Furthermore, I very much accept that an ISD is superior to an MC, and I am very much fine with that. The ISD is meant to be the most powerful ship around (next to the SSD and ESD) and that's why I also argue against the allegedly superior Kedalbe and Aggressor. They may have been stolen Imperial designs, but in the end he's a pirate and a gangster, and despite having money would not have produced the same quality ships as Imperials, or the same quantity - at least without anyone taking notice. It's similar to bootlegged DVDs - they may be surprisingly good but they still aren’t on the same level.

I am both an ISD and an MC fan - heck, the Acclamator, ISD, SSD and Venator are damn cool! However, I do raise these issues due to game balance and also because I have to admit - ever since X-Wing Alliance I have very much preferred to see MCs with Hangars. They are so much cooler and effective that way.

Anyway, enough of the rambling… I do realize the MC has a technical advantage to the ISD in terms of maneuverability. However, while it’s noticeable enough if you pay close attention, it still isn't significant enough to be cited as an all-out advantage if you catch my drift. It's no boost shields ability in my book.

What I suggest would be maybe improving the speed of the MC to make it more noticeable. If that would happen I’d be more willing to let the ISD improvements slide for game balance, as this would put the MC a bit more even. Now I’m not saying make it as fast as an MC Frigate, but I would appreciate a significant speed boost to more accurately reflect the maneuverability advantage of the MC over the ISD. Maybe a 40%-50% boost in speed in-between the MC's speed and the MC Frigate's speed?

I would also be very much willing to allow the price of an MC rise if this occured, since it would make the game more fair for Imperial players.

You say the pop cap isn’t big enough for the rebs? Then what pop cap do you think is reasonable? Should the rebs get extra pop cap that can only be filled by starfighters? Keep in mind if you raised it to 30 you would have 50% more cap than the Empire. Bye Bye balance.

Other than this, what would you like to see done to the ISD to make it more balanced then; reduced fighter/bomber cap/increase in price. Put forward some ideas please. Does it have to be an improvement to the MC?

Well that's a toughie to answer. There are options but it would get more complicated and everybody knows that. I'm fine with beefing out the ISD but only if you give the MC something else to compensate for it, even if it isn't making it exactly equal to the ISD. There are different ways to do it, i've mentioned two of them - boosting the maneuverability/speed of the MC, giving it a hangar, or a laser cannon. Any of those would give it a boost, and even if the designers wanted to boost an ISD further as long as it is proportional in the end then i'm fine with that.

In terms of pop. cap; increasing it for the Rebels isn't the solution, since it would make it unfair for Imperials as you stated, so I was kind of thinking if there was a way to decrease the pop. cap of specific units to kind of give the Rebels some kind of edge. I kind of thought of it like this:

Ammended Pop Caps for Specific Units:

Rebel Fighters: 1
Rebel Corvettes: 1
Nebulon-B Frigates: 2
Imperial Fighters: 1
Tartans: 1
Acclamators: 3
Victory's: 3
Assault Frigates: 3
MC30 Frigates: 3
etc.

Let's keep in mind that none of this is final, and I was only kind of brainstorming this.

The reason I would say make the Acclamator cost more than the Nebulon-B is because the Acclamator has fighters - that's my justification for it. This setup would somewhat upset the balance, but if you guys have any suggestions to tweak it please let me know.

I also think the MC Frigate should be kept at 3 because their effectiveness definitely renders them worthy of occupying 3 slots on the pop. cap as they are a very useful and devastating unit if used right. Of course the other units are too, but not to the same extent.

*”Rebels did not send fighters en-masse.” = They relied on fighters more than they did cap ships that’s for damn sure.

*As I said before, if you're going to use Canon to support your argument, then it's *all* the canon, not just the bits beneficial to you. = Hhmm gee then why do you think I want to see an improvement to the reb fighters?? I agree with you Shadow! Boost the Xwings shields. It’s okay in all other areas.

I sure as hell agree that the Rebel's strength is their fighters, which is why I think the balance should be restored to both what it is in canon, but also so that the Rebels still have their advantages - which definitely means boosting the X-Wing. I don't mind where it gets boosted as long as there's a boost - though I do not accept S-foil boosts for any fighters really because they are the least used, only for zipping across the map and initiating bombing runs. Though the base speed is the most important for that.

In any case, a boost to the X-Wing is a welcome development to me. I'm sure you guys have already looked on Petroglyph Forums...I don't see any changes being made to X-Wings? Anyone?

Finally, I won't reply to anything you said to Tears, that's between you two and I don't need to put my two cents in, so I won't :helm2:

RustLord, there's a lot here so I'll just answer your direct points.

It’s obvious you’re a big MC fan but you seem to want it to be clearly superior to the ISD for less cost!? Lay off the crack.


I'm not really sure where this came from - I've stated twice that the price of the Mon Cal should go up.


*The MC is “good against ISDs but pathetic against Keldabes” = *Everything* is pathetic against Keldabes at the moment but the changes make it better. And if the MC is good against ISDs what the hell are you complaining about and wanting it buffed for?


The situation that currently, the Mon Cal is a match for the ISD and dies horribly to a Keldabe. With the way things are going it'll die horribly to everything. I'm only asking for buffs to keep it competitive with the ISD - as much as you don't accept it, the MC is rapidly running out of advantages. Pretty soon it'll have less firepower and less hitpoints, on top of no hangar. All of this is apparently balanced by the fact that it's cheaper (which is meaningless - money is mainly a matter of time more than anything else), and it's got a boost shields ability (which is a valid point, and it is the only thing from stopping the MC from becoming the crusier version of the X-Wing - overpriced and rubbish against everything).

The only other thing is it's maneuverability, which as I said before, no-one seems to be able to pin down what precisely that is useful for (besides blind rushing).


*You say the pop cap isn’t big enough for the rebs? Then what pop cap do you think is reasonable? Should the rebs get extra pop cap that can only be filled by starfighters? Keep in mind if you raised it to 30 you would have 50% more cap than the Empire. Bye Bye balance.


I should have made this a little clearer. I'm not asking for an increase in Pop cap, I'm asking for the fighters which take up that popcap to be more useful. Currently I'm stuck with fighters which take up more population than there populationless imperial counterparts.... yet fall apart when they take them on.

It's completley canon for the Rebels to have less fighters - it's also completely canon for the Rebel starfighters to be stronger, as the imperials viewed fighters as harrasment agents at best.


*If you think the Xwing is now crap (which I agree) then buy Awings. They still shred Imp fighters.


That's a weak point. Simply using something else because the X-Wing is underpowered does not change the fact that the X-Wing is... underpowered.
Besides, the A-Wings were never the standard fighter of the Rebels.


*”A-Wings would be significantly faster than anything in space (Defender included)”= Bullcrap. Where are these stats from? The Awing has and speed of 120 and the Defender has 156. Even in XWA with ships toned down the defender was faster. The defenders speed has been cut in the patch and while disappointing its prolly fair.


The stats come from the Essential Guide to Vessels and Vehicles, published by Lucasarts. They state in Plain English that the A-Wing was faster.
I'm assuming your getting you info from the TIE Fighter game. It was faster in that due to balance reasons - the games are not good sources of canon. Just look at Battlefront 2 - apparently the V-Wings were the Republic's main bomber and the Republic Gunships were used as Space Shuttles. And standard battle droids didn't exist.
(And yes, I am aware of what it says on Wookiepedia. Aside from the fact that Wookiepedia has acquired a bit of a repuation for making articles based on literally anything (I saw an article once on a new legged MTT which was based on a bad drawing of a regular MTT in a comic), the situation is this - Open-Source Fansite vs. Canon Book. No contest.)


*”If the ships are almost equal, why are *you* making fuss? In fact, why are you even asking for upgrades?” = Dood, the ISD advocates if I can call them that did not start this. Check the beginning of this thread. I stated the change in stats and then Shadow initially and then yourself wanted the MC buffed. Read your own posts again! We have discussed ISD upgrades in other threads and Petro have listened (AMEN)… Although the changes are very minimal.


I think there's been some miscommunication there. As I said, I only want the MC to be buffed because it looks like it's going to be left behind. You may think it's better for whatever reason - I don't think it's a bad ship, but shortly the only thing that will make it useful is it's shield boost so it can be used as a meatshield - as it's guns and Hit points stop it from being a frontliner and the lack of hangar means that it's bad population value.


*(on shield recharge) “Yes. That's intended to make up for less damage, less hitpoints and no hangar.” = *shakes head*… read the HPs and damage “advantage” above. I would have gladly traded these increases to get shield boost for the ISD. Then you would have something to really whinge about.


Well that's because someone, somewhere, thought that shield boost and hangar on a single ship would be cheese. I agree with them.


*”To be honest it sounds like you expect ISDs to be able to take on whole fleets.” = When I have said you can kill an ISD with one MC used correctly? Are you even reading my posts? Personally I would like to see that, and have even fewer ISDs in the game after all in the Imperial order of battle an ISD is equivalent to a line of ordinary cruisers itself; but this will never happen and I’m not fussed.


Yes, thank you, I was reading your posts. Including this:

In anything other than one on one the ISD will lose; even then if you know what you are doing with the MC you can still defeat the ISD comfortably. The only thing you have to worry about is bombers, which corvettes take care of easily, and as Wedge pointed out about gunships, this is the essence of the game....its not just about MCs vs ISDs.

Forgive me, but this sounds like it's a bad thing that the ISD is outdone by a number of corvettes, fighters, and an MC - i.e. a fleet. If you meant something else then that isn't my fault, you shoudl have made it clearer.


*”I'm supposed to defeat superior units that cost less using.... micromanagement?” = my point was a general point about the game, not specific to the rebel faction. And if you play the game I am sure you know that ISDs actually cost more than MCs and in skirmish Interceptors cost more than Xwings. Relax, you are not being victimized…they aren’t coming for you, its okay!


You didn't make that clear. you appeared to be responding to mine and shadow's responses about the shortfalls of the MC with a bout of lessons on how to strutcure attacks against an ISD and it's fighters.


*”Tactics have their place but trying to insinuate that Imperial players need better units to compete with rebel genius is the weakest argument I've ever heard. In fact, it's desperate.” = I have never stated or insinuated this. You must be having delusions because I don’t know how you drew this conclusion from what I wrote. Tactics and MM applies to all sides, even the ZC.


*sigh* I got the hint from this:

You might have to use more of your pop cap some time to defeat an enemy but you can make that up in other ways. Micro managing the right units at the right time can also turn the battle. These are things you just cant factor into stats. So the ISD gets fighters and bombers...its always a gamble for the ISD what to do with them.

You started going on about how I need to use lots of population to defeat Imperials but apparently I have to make this up in other ways, i.e. using tactics. I not against using tactics but I don't think they should be used simply to keep afloat against a unfairly superior side.

These aren't delusions - these are from your post. If you made stuff clearer and more relevent then there would be no problems. Since when did the discussion turn to the need for overall tactics in EaW?


*Your whole paragraph about what I said about the Imp uber fighters makes no sense. Again I don’t know how you thought I was complaining about needing to use tactics when using these fighters. Tactics were never mentioned. Someone was winging about Rebels getting 5 fighters per sdqn when Imps get 7. I was pointing out this is not true with the uber fighters and how much it would cost to outnumber a rebel sqdn…not to mention 2 sdqns are 1/10 of your total pop cap.


Well, I wasn't that someone so I don't understand why you directed it at me in your response. I can't see into you mind, I don't know who you're talking to, and if you follow up a response specifically to me with this I'm going to assume you're talking to me.
I couldn't care less about outnumbering. What I thought you were getting at was that your elite fighters were expensive when you have the choice of using both Elites and Disposables. There bound to be expensive when you've got all that choice - the rebels don't have that.


*”Rebels did not send fighters en-masse.” = They relied on fighters more than they did cap ships that’s for damn sure.


I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here. What you've said is true but what does this have to do the effectiveness of the MC and X-Wings in EaW? My point was that the fighters need a buff more than the cruisers to, to be honest.
I didn't understand what you were saying either. Pretty much anything is effective en-masse - that doesn't fix the unit and it doesn't help the situation...


*As I said before, if you're going to use Canon to support your argument, then it's *all* the canon, not just the bits beneficial to you. = Hhmm gee then why do you think I want to see an improvement to the reb fighters?? I agree with you Shadow! Boost the Xwings shields. It’s okay in all other areas.


This came from the fact that you were using canon to support your argument for ISDs being more powerful than MCs... but then appeared to evaporate when the points about MC hangars, maneverability being a solid advantage and using fighters en-masse were raised. As I said, the canon argument works both ways.

Shadow, I have to admit, I don't really like the idea of the Laser Cannon or the Hangar. The problem is the Laser Cannons on Cruisers are a bit pants unless their mounted in banks like Corvettes. I'm not really sure if they'd have much of an effect - and their not really canon either.

The Hangar Bay is canon but.... it begs the question why don't the rest of the rebel ships have fighters? It just doesn't seem to fit with the rebels, what with bringing fighters in via hyperspace and whatnot.

Taking X-Wing boosts as a given, I think the best thing that could be done with the MC is to keep it's higher maneverability but make sure that actually equates to a boost. Perhaps allowing the MC to fly under and over Imperial ships so they can simply move to whatever position they need to get a good a shot.

I realize this is kind of random but this is a patch thread and the Mon Calamari Cruiser debate seems to have hit a stalemate.

I hope Petro adds a choice for match-ups in galactic conquest. You know, Not a three-way battle but maybe just a two-way battle as a choice. I think it would be fun to have the classic Rebs vs. Empire or Consortium vs. Rebs or Empire. Just a thought...

I hope Petro reintroduces the "random events" option into Galactic Conquest as well. Galactic Conquest games just don't feel the same without them. What do you all think?

Yeah, pretty much. In any case, the patch readme has gone live now.

It's a pity they didn't add an ally capability. That way if you're outmatched vs. the Consortium, the one reb team can match up and ally with the one Imp team.

Just some off topic, lol. :p

Anyway I think this Mon Cal debate is centered toward the fact that Consortium units are overpowered. Nerf the Consortium, don't buff the others.

I realize this is kind of random but this is a patch thread and the Mon Calamari Cruiser debate seems to have hit a stalemate.

I hope Petro adds a choice for match-ups in galactic conquest. You know, Not a three-way battle but maybe just a two-way battle as a choice. I think it would be fun to have the classic Rebs vs. Empire or Consortium vs. Rebs or Empire. Just a thought...

I hope Petro reintroduces the "random events" option into Galactic Conquest as well. Galactic Conquest games just don't feel the same without them. What do you all think?

I made one for the Equal Footing map GC. Empire vs Rebel only. I have only one starting planet for each, and pirates on other neutral worlds to slow down the land rush.

Many mods can be made, but until a decent patch is out...well we are all waiting before serious modding.

I myself have beefed up the X-Wing to make it worth something...gave it better shields about 25% and a higher refresh rate. I think it could use a pair of concusion missles to boot.

I see the Empire new fighters just run over the Rebels, and it is *not really fun* to play.

A boost to Rebel fighters would go a long way to help the Mon Cal problem verse the Empire ISD now stronger fighters to maintain some kind of balance.

Point taken Valter. Yes thanks chaps (Shads and Tears) that was fun. I see there is a bit of miscommunication and I actually agree with you more than you might think. Its just among the cap ships, one is always going to 'come last'. Doesnt mean it is no good. I dont want the ISD to fall back into that position. If the MC gets upgraded..fine, as long as its price increases accordingly.

As for the Keldabe, the MC doesnt do too bad now but even if it received some Awings, they wont help against the Keldabe. It will get beaten as badly as it did before and its going to cost more. I havent looked at the stats for the Keldabes speed/agility. To boost the MCs speed is an idea although I wouldnt like to see it increase by much. What about a really short duration engine boost (im talking 3-5 secs) like the corvette but certainly not as fast. This way the MC can accelerate out of a tight spot or maneuver even quicker. Even for a cap ship they should be basically able to turn on the spot like they did in ROTJ. I appreciate your opinion about the ISD Shads but we all know the Keldabe will continue to be the best capital ship around now. Bring it on..the bigger they are the harder they fall.

As for buying Awings over Xwings...i know it doesnt solve anything but its the only solution available at present. It would be better for star base garrison fighters to upgrade to Awings when you reach the right tech level to counter the other fighters. As for the Xwing, they are supposed to be generally on par with the interceptor so increase their price to 550 in skirmish and give them a shield boost.

Shads I agree with you abut the random fighter issue. One sdqn of each X,Y and A for Mon Cals issued randomly would be good and fun, because you never know what you will receive and you will have to adjust accordingly; so it wont always be the advantage it could be. Yes Ackbar should get Bwings.

Shads you said: "I also like using the blind spot ability, but my original tactic when doing scouting is to bring in either a corvette or fighters, fly to the enemy and bring in counters to each enemy ship depending on the positioning, that way there's a shielded force e.g. Neb-B against Corvettes would be put in between Corvettes and fighters, but within range of other smaller capital ships - MC's come in last."
=without reigniting the pop cap debate this is what i was thinking as far as tactics and management-> force selection! I know its got more weight in skirmish but still valid in GC. Forget pop cap for a moment. What you deploy is most important. I know having corellian gunships taking out ISDs might seem incredible but this is the sort of David and Goliath struggle that made it all cool. I remember in the RPG the assault frigate and corellian gunships both had some nasty weapons that could mess up an ISD so I honestly dont mind getting mauled by those buggers. Getting taken down by a group of corellian corvettes is a different story. :P I really expected the Assault Frigate to pack alot more punch in this game...anyway, my point is if you can select the right ships and bring them in at the right time and position you can take out the enemy even if it takes you more cap. But if you can take out a couple of frigates early on in the game for eg and keep your forces relatively in tact then you have won an economic victory because the other player is going to have to spend credits on replacing those ships. This takes a big toll over time since you can buy more ships or upgrade. Choosing your fights (as much as you can) is at the heart of how the Alliance fought in SW and in this game. Thats why, I believe, they are faster. Death by a thousand cuts...hence why fighters were (should be) so important.

As for the MC-30 I think they could come down in price a tad...4000 in skirmish is a wad of cash for a fragile frigate. 3500 is still a hefty price becasue you only have to take your eyes off it for an instant, lose two hardpoints and they are useless, chewing up 3 pop cap to boot.

Well, the patch notes are now finalized and I am impressed with the overall changes that will be included. I think there are some welcome changes for the Consortium (I think there should have been more nerfs to the Keldabe and Aggressor though). I have no objections to the rebel changes and finally the Imperial Star Destroyer will be as powerful as it should have been in the first place.

I agree with you Rust_Lord about the MC-30, such a fragile frigate should not be near the price range of a Mon Calamari Cruiser.

I do hope however that all of the bugs will be fixed. It would be a shame if a new patch was needed immediately after this one goes public...

I agree with you Rust_Lord about the MC-30, such a fragile frigate should not be near the price range of a Mon Calamari Cruiser.


I know it must sound like I'm disagreeing with Rust_Lord on EVERYTHING but I'm not sure it needs a price reduction. It's one of the few units in the Rebel arsenal that is lethal against both Fighters and Cruisers. I don't mind the increase in time between volleys - it's shooting 8 torpedoes at once - and the cluster bomb is still there (which was one of the few effective weapons against the Star Vipers). I think a heavy price should be required.

This is a cool smily. :rifle:

This is a cool smily. :rifle:

Uh...... yes.....:nut

sorry the smily was meant come up. Lol!

this was what i was talking about, by the way how do you put quotes in ur text where it sez orinialy posted by whoever? :rifle1: :sniper9:

this was what i was talking about, by the way how do you put quotes in ur text where it sez orinialy posted by whoever? :rifle1: :sniper9:

You press the quote button, below the post :p

this was what i was talking about, by the way how do you put quotes in ur text where it sez orinialy posted by whoever? :rifle1: :sniper9:

Basically, you put a [, then you type QUOTE in capital letters. That is followed by an = sign and then you type the person's name correctly and put another ] facing the other way.

After that you paste in what they said.

Then behind the text you put another [, then a / and then you type QUOTE again and put a ]. That should do it....

Remember, this is for quoting multiple pieces of text. If you want to quote just one piece of text, then just press quote :)

Thanks guys, is this on quick reply or advanced coz on quick it won't let me click the box. Why?

You press the quote button, below the post Thanks, i get it now.

I realize this is kind of random but this is a patch thread and the Mon Calamari Cruiser debate seems to have hit a stalemate.

Technically it has, and it hasn't. We aren't really off-topic since we are talking about MCs and ISDs, but in terms of changes FOR the patch, so I think it's okay. Sure, this is a patch thread but let's face it - this thread would have died long ago were it not for our debate. This is also evident in the fact that there has been no real topic since you instigated this comment...so I say we continue this debate, but constructively.

Since we've now sort of hit a stalemate. Let's think of ways we can compromise and come up with some possible changes which we could possibly pitch towards one of the designers for a future patch.

Shadow, I have to admit, I don't really like the idea of the Laser Cannon or the Hangar. The problem is the Laser Cannons on Cruisers are a bit pants unless their mounted in banks like Corvettes. I'm not really sure if they'd have much of an effect - and their not really canon either.

Okay, I accept that the laser canon idea isn't a popular one so i'll drop that entirely. But I still maintain that the Hangar idea is good (and canon), and it doesn't necessarily distort game balance the way Rusty and I have discussed it. A random squadron each time would spice things up a bit. I have to admit, I kind of forgot what the armament of an MC was and i'm too lazy to look it up (i've had a long day - trust me) but I swear they had some laser cannons on em?

The Hangar Bay is canon but.... it begs the question why don't the rest of the rebel ships have fighters? It just doesn't seem to fit with the rebels, what with bringing fighters in via hyperspace and whatnot.

The Hangar bay is canon yes. If you included 1 or 2 random fighter squadrons (out of Rebels) it would be balanced and fair, and also canon since each MC had different complements of squadrons.

The rest of the Rebel ships don't have fighters because they weren't outfitted with fighters in canon. The Assault Frigate Mk II was meant as a space weapons platform and the Nebulon-B did carry fighters...but on extra racks which were outfitted to the undercarriage of the Frigate. It's state in EAW now is its original state - but i'm sure you already know that :P You already know about MC Frigates anyway and they are not canon so I won't speak about them.

Tears, I know you also think MCs should be buffed but how? I haven't really seen you mention anything significant in terms of the way they should be buffed. I've mentioned 3 methods sofar - laser cannons, hangar and speed. What are you specifically thinking of? I'm out of ideas so i'm definitely willing to listen to your suggestions :ears1:

Taking X-Wing boosts as a given, I think the best thing that could be done with the MC is to keep it's higher maneverability but make sure that actually equates to a boost. Perhaps allowing the MC to fly under and over Imperial ships so they can simply move to whatever position they need to get a good a shot.

Please elaborate on this. It's similar to what I said. My suggestion is to either change its cruising speed by 40-50% in-between its original speed and the MC30c's (what I said before), or to include something like the Corvettes have which is the boost engines ability - although it would be active for a much shorter duration with the same recharge time as the Corvette. And yes this is also agreeing with the point you made earlier Rusty.

Allowing the MC to fly over and under the ISD is an interesting idea, but I find it difficult to envision how that could be set by the designers and how you would pull that off in skirmish. For me, when I turn on the cinematic camera 7-8 times out of 10 there will be a few ships which are on a different 'altitude' level (technically not the right word but you know what I mean) than the others.

As for the MC-30 I think they could come down in price a tad...4000 in skirmish is a wad of cash for a fragile frigate. 3500 is still a hefty price becasue you only have to take your eyes off it for an instant, lose two hardpoints and they are useless, chewing up 3 pop cap to boot.

Totally read my mind there. I was thinking of the exact same price and I definitely agree. Along with your points about it I would also like to respond to Tears' comment about the Cluster Bomb. They may still be there, but the bombs only work in the range of the outer-most circle when the bombs have fully expanded - so the damage effect works only there and not inside or outside the arc of where the bombs explode. 3500 seems like a good price to me. They are a little more effective than Assault Frigates, but also weaker in armour, so the 500 extra is warranted. 4000 is too much.

Choosing your fights (as much as you can) is at the heart of how the Alliance fought in SW and in this game. Thats why, I believe, they are faster. Death by a thousand cuts...hence why fighters were (should be) so important.]

I agree. To be honest however, when you are in a cramped skirmish battle map, picking your fights becomes harder since there's nowhere to really go and you are fighting over both land and mining facilities. It may work for GC, but definitely not for skirmish in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Rust_Lord] As for buying Awings over Xwings...i know it doesnt solve anything but its the only solution available at present. It would be better for star base garrison fighters to upgrade to Awings when you reach the right tech level to counter the other fighters. As for the Xwing, they are supposed to be generally on par with the interceptor so increase their price to 550 in skirmish and give them a shield boost.

Agreed. I just hope that a designer is weighing in on this discussion. Otherwise i'll have to seek one out and inform him of the points :)

I myself have beefed up the X-Wing to make it worth something...gave it better shields about 25% and a higher refresh rate. I think it could use a pair of concusion missles to boot.

I see the Empire new fighters just run over the Rebels, and it is *not really fun* to play.

A boost to Rebel fighters would go a long way to help the Mon Cal problem verse the Empire ISD now stronger fighters to maintain some kind of balance.

Agreed there. Rebels definitely aren't fun to play in this way. I don't even play against the Consortium in skirmish anymore, or at all (I only play skirmish atm). I only play either as Imps vs. Rebs or as Rebs vs. Imps.

Though for the X-wings would recommend Proton Torpedoes instead of Concussion Missles however, as Protons were canon - the X-Wing had them and A-Wings were the ones with Concussion Missles.

On another note, I think I was the guy who made that comment about the 'more TIE fighters in comparison to Rebel fighters' comment. It was not fully argued, or poorly argued - so please disregard that comment, I apologize :).

Finally, here are my suggestions to end this argument and prevent another one flaring up to do justice for both sides:

1. Increase the speed of the MC (in one of the ways I mentioned before) or:
2. Give the MC a Hangar with 1 or 2 random fighter complements. Home One
would get B-Wings automatically and 1 other random fighter complement.
3. Keep the ISD stats - that's happenning anyway and i'm fine with that.
4. BOOST THE X-WING. A shield boost is definitely welcomed - by 25% at
least would be great.
5. NERF THE CONSORTIUM - that's happenning anyway, but I definitely
want to see a decline in mass-driver and special weapon effectiveness.
6. Change the MC Frigate's cost from 4000 to 3500.


If there is anything else please do not hesitate to add and voice your own opinions. Who knows, the constructiveness may actually lead to something... :spin:

"NERF THE CONSORTIUM - that's happenning anyway"

What do you mean that's happeneing anyway? I hope nerf only means weaken not obliterate, I wouldn't like seeing my new fav faction go down the toilet, even if they were slightly weaker than the other two factions.

Technically it has, and it hasn't. We aren't really off-topic since we are talking about MCs and ISDs, but in terms of changes FOR the patch, so I think it's okay. Sure, this is a patch thread but let's face it - this thread would have died long ago were it not for our debate. This is also evident in the fact that there has been no real topic since you instigated this comment...so I say we continue this debate, but constructively.

Since we've now sort of hit a stalemate. Let's think of ways we can compromise and come up with some possible changes which we could possibly pitch towards one of the designers for a future patch.


I apologize, I just figured the debate had hit a standstill but if you still want to discuss the issue then I have no objections, I have nothing better to do right now anyway...


Okay, I accept that the laser canon idea isn't a popular one so i'll drop that entirely. But I still maintain that the Hangar idea is good (and canon), and it doesn't necessarily distort game balance the way Rusty and I have discussed it. A random squadron each time would spice things up a bit. I have to admit, I kind of forgot what the armament of an MC was and i'm too lazy to look it up (i've had a long day - trust me) but I swear they had some laser cannons on em?


Well, I just checked Wookieepedia and the MC-80 (the design in EAW) has no laser cannons but does have a hangar bay. There many other ways to fix the balance issues in this game. One solution is strengthening the rebel starfighters, which would defeat the purpose of a hangar bay.
Actually, the boost in power to the B-wings and A-wings coupled with the nerfs to the StarVipers and TIE Defenders should be enough to put the Rebels back in front when it come to starfighter performance.


The Hangar bay is canon yes. If you included 1 or 2 random fighter squadrons (out of Rebels) it would be balanced and fair, and also canon since each MC had different complements of squadrons.

Canon? Yes. Necessary? No.

As I stated before the rebel fighters are getting some boosts while the Imperial and Consortium fighters are getting nerfed, thereby putting the Rebels ahead of the game in the starfighter department.

I maintain my standpoint on nerfing the Consortium cruisers. Instead of beefing up the Mon Cals why not nerf the Keldabes and Aggressors? I think this solution is far more practical in the long run because it would rebalance both the Consortium and the rebels at one time. Kill two birds with one stone...



Finally, here are my suggestions to end this argument and prevent another one flaring up to do justice for both sides:

1. Increase the speed of the MC (in one of the ways I mentioned before) or:
2. Give the MC a Hangar with a random fighter complement.
3. Keep the ISD stats - that's happenning anyway and i'm fine with that.
4. BOOST THE X-WING. A shield boost is definitely welcomed - by 25% at
least would be great.
5. NERF THE CONSORTIUM - that's happenning anyway, but I definitely
want to see a decline in mass-driver and special weapon effectiveness.
6. Change the MC Frigate's cost from 4000 to 3500.


If there is anything else please do not hesitate to add and voice your own opinions. Who knows, the constructiveness may actually lead to something... :spin:


Excellent suggestions but I don't think number 2 is necessary if the others are implemented.

To give the Mon Cals a hangar bay after increasing their speed, strengthening the X-wings and nerfing the Consortium would be a redundancy. I just think giving the Mon Cals a hangar bay would cause more problems than it would solve. Most likely it would force the game designers to give the Keldabe a hangar bay to balance out the Capital ships. The pop cap would have to be drastically increased for the Mon Cal which would defeat the purpose of giving it a hangar bay, if the Mon Cal's pop cap is not increased then the rebel player can hyperspace in multiple Mon Cals and mass spam fighters thereby destroying the game balance further. The fighters that the Mon Cal releases would have to be given a pop cap thereby defeating the purpose of a hangar bay again, and if the fighters don't take up pop cap in battle then buying fighters seperately would become unnecessary.

Don't you see? There are many other ways to solve the given balance problems without giving the Mon Cals a hangar bay.

I welcome any opinions or objections about my given suggestions...

I apologize, I just figured the debate had hit a standstill but if you still want to discuss the issue then I have no objections, I have nothing better to do right now anyway...

Yeah...we've got nothing to do anyway until the patch comes out lol!

Excellent suggestions but I don't think number 2 is necessary if the others are implemented.

To give the Mon Cals a hangar bay after increasing their speed, strengthening the X-wings and nerfing the Consortium would be a redundancy. I just think giving the Mon Cals a hangar bay would cause more problems than it would solve. Most likely it would force the game designers to give the Keldabe a hangar bay to balance out the Capital ships. The pop cap would have to be drastically increased for the Mon Cal which would defeat the purpose of giving it a hangar bay, if the Mon Cal's pop cap is not increased then the rebel player can hyperspace in multiple Mon Cals and mass spam fighters thereby destroying the game balance further. The fighters that the Mon Cal releases would have to be given a pop cap thereby defeating the purpose of a hangar bay again, and if the fighters don't take up pop cap in battle then buying fighters seperately would become unnecessary.

Don't you see? There are many other ways to solve the given balance problems without giving the Mon Cals a hangar bay.

I welcome any opinions or objections about my given suggestions...

1. I said OR at the back of my first point. So i'm happy with either. If a speed boost is given in one of those ways then i'll be happy enough.

2. Remember my post about the pop. cap comparison of ISDs and MCs and the point which ended up being Rebels were outnumbered in fighters 3-1? Well, increasing the MCs with a Hangar and giving Rebels 1 squadron each would mean:

Out of a Pop. Cap of 20 for Imps: they would get 5 ISDs along with 10 TIE Interceptor squadrons and 5 TIE Bomber Squadrons (at 2 Fighter and 1 Bomber squadrons per ISD).

Out of a Pop. Cap of 25 for Rebs: they would get 5 MonCals along with 5 Fighter squadrons taking up population cap, and 5 fighter/bomber squadrons randomly mixed from hangars which do not take up pop cap.

Final result = Imps 5 ISDs, 10 Fighters, 5 Bombers...Rebs 5 MonCals, 10 Mixed fighter/bomber squadrons.

This would be coupled with the ISD being superior with more firepower and armour like its upgrade in this patch, and the MC being a bit faster and having shields.

And let's remember this is hypothetical in comparison and usually fleets are mixed, so it always ends up differently, but if squadrons were compared rawly like that, thats how it would turn out. Plus other Frigates don't have squadrons for Rebels, only MonCal - so Imps are still favoured anyway.

I'd still say that's a more or less even balance which favours the ISD more-so. But if the MonCal only got a speed boost (though a bit more significantly, i'd be happy too).

Well, I just checked Wookieepedia and the MC-80 (the design in EAW) has no laser cannons but does have a hangar bay. There many other ways to fix the balance issues in this game. One solution is strengthening the rebel starfighters, which would defeat the purpose of a hangar bay.
Actually, the boost in power to the B-wings and A-wings coupled with the nerfs to the StarVipers and TIE Defenders should be enough to put the Rebels back in front when it come to starfighter performance.

We already said Rebel fighter boosts, and i'm happy with that and certainly hope its gonna happen for the X-Wings. However, a tiny speed boost for the MC is still warranted...

"NERF THE CONSORTIUM - that's happenning anyway"

What do you mean that's happeneing anyway? I hope nerf only means weaken not obliterate, I wouldn't like seeing my new fav faction go down the toilet, even if they were slightly weaker than the other two factions.

Of course they're not getting obliterated, but nerfing the Aggressors and Kedalbes like Valter suggested is fine by me :noel:. The ZC are already being downgraded somewhat in the patch as you will have already read...


Finally, I was playing skirmish yesterday and I was moving my MonCals towards the Repair satellite I set up after a battle. For 2 MonCals it was at 80% Hull Strength, full shields and 80% hard points for each hard point. However, the Repair Satellite was trying to heal it and it didn't do anything?

I had the Alliance and Ardent out, along with Home One (1 of its Ion Hardpoints was also damaged but the Satellite couldn't do anything). Is this some kind of glitch or is it supposed to happen? It says the Satellite fixes hardpoints but while it happened at the beginning, after the second battle nothing happened to my MonCals? Anybody know....?

I don't know if u have already been talking about this but in space they shuld add a feature where the X Wings or Ties fight together in a squadron, no go off and do their own thing it wuld ne fun if u culd off with ur team and attack the Imperial Star Destroyer!

erm, no idea what you just said...

sorry made some big spelling and puncuation mistakes their, Fight in squads out in space

1. I said OR at the back of my first point. So i'm happy with either. If a speed boost is given in one of those ways then i'll be happy enough.

A speed boost would be much easier to implement than a hangar bay.

2. Remember my post about the pop. cap comparison of ISDs and MCs and the point which ended up being Rebels were outnumbered in fighters 3-1? Well, increasing the MCs with a Hangar and giving Rebels 1 squadron each would mean:

Out of a Pop. Cap of 20 for Imps: they would get 5 ISDs along with 10 TIE Interceptor squadrons and 5 TIE Bomber Squadrons (at 2 Fighter and 1 Bomber squadrons per ISD).

Point taken but if the rebel fighters got a boost in firepower then it wouldn't matter if they were outnumbered by Imperial fighters. Quality over quantity was the Rebel philosophy anyway...

Out of a Pop. Cap of 25 for Rebs: they would get 5 MonCals along with 5 Fighter squadrons taking up population cap, and 5 fighter/bomber squadrons randomly mixed from hangars which do not take up pop cap.

Again, There are many other solutions to the given balance problems; The balance problem with starfighters could be easily remedied just by strengthening the Rebel starfighters, and the balance problem with the Capital ships could be solved with a simple speed boost to the MC's and a nerf to the Consortium Cruisers.

Final result = Imps 5 ISDs, 10 Fighters, 5 Bombers...Rebs 5 MonCals, 10 Mixed fighter/bomber squadrons.

Ok, then if the fighters that the Mon Cals release from their hangar bays are random then what if the Mon Cals released nothing but X-wings? The rebels would be screwed.

This would be coupled with the ISD being superior with more firepower and armour like its upgrade in this patch, and the MC being a bit faster and having shields.

If the MC was faster and had better shields then there would be no reason to add a hangar bay.


We already said Rebel fighter boosts, and i'm happy with that and certainly hope its gonna happen for the X-Wings. However, a tiny speed boost for the MC is still warranted...

Finally, we agree on something. :cheers:



Of course they're not getting obliterated, but nerfing the Aggressors and Kedalbes like Valter suggested is fine by me :noel:. The ZC are already being downgraded somewhat in the patch as you will have already read...

Yes, the Consortium is being downgraded slightly but the Aggressors are not included in the patch (Correct me If I'm wrong) therefore the Aggressors are still the almighty gods of space combat.

Nerf Consortium Capital ships, speed up Mon Cals and Strengthen Rebel fighters and all balance issues should be corrected.


Finally, I was playing skirmish yesterday and I was moving my MonCals towards the Repair satellite I set up after a battle. For 2 MonCals it was at 80% Hull Strength, full shields and 80% hard points for each hard point. However, the Repair Satellite was trying to heal it and it didn't do anything?

I had the Alliance and Ardent out, along with Home One (1 of its Ion Hardpoints was also damaged but the Satellite couldn't do anything). Is this some kind of glitch or is it supposed to happen? It says the Satellite fixes hardpoints but while it happened at the beginning, after the second battle nothing happened to my MonCals? Anybody know....?

I've had this happen to me as well while attempting to repair damaged Star Destroyers or MC's with repair platforms, it's definately a glitch. I hope this problem will be addressed in the patch.

Again, There are many other solutions to the given balance problems; The balance problem with starfighters could be easily remedied just by strengthening the Rebel starfighters, and the balance problem with the Capital ships could be solved with a simple speed boost to the MC's and a nerf to the Consortium Cruisers.
Giving the Rebel fighters a bump might be the solution to both problems, and would be more in keeping with canon and other games like the X-Wing series, where squadrons of Rebel fighter-bombers would be sent to take out Imperial capital ships.

I've had this happen to me as well while attempting to repair damaged Star Destroyers or MC's with repair platforms, it's definately a glitch. I hope this problem will be addressed in the patch.

I am very much for giving X-Wings shield boosts. However, I did have another thought which also brings back my argument about X-Wings needing Torpedo launchers.

When I look at it, the Imperials have another advantage over the Rebels in terms of starfighters which I think should be addressed. If you look at it, the Imperials have the TIE Fighter, Interceptor, Bomber, Defender and Phantom.

Examining them closer reveals that the TIE Bomber, Defender AND Phantom can all shoot Proton Torpedoes. In comparison, the Rebels have 4 fighters: the X-Wing, the Y-Wing, the A-Wing and the B-Wing; and only two of these fighters can shoot Proton Torpedoes.

Now I agree with Tears, and I hope you all agree also that the Rebels were superior in space in terms of fighters and space pilot skill (not really factoring the addition of the TIE Defender, Elite Imp Pilots or experimental TIEs).

I therefore suggest that to counter this balance is to give the X-Wing Proton Torpedoes vs. Capital Ships and space installations. Also possibly giving the A-Wing Concussion Missles (but that's only conditional). This would match the Rebels with Imperials in terms of Proton Torpedo ability and also boost the X-Wing more. It wouldn't unbalance it with TIE Fighters because it had protons in canon + they are against capital ships + X-wings whooped TIE Fighters anyway.


Also, for Mon Calamari Cruisers. I think it is probably for the best to increase the speed. Though i'm not really sure whether it should be as an ability like the Corvettes, or as a n/a speed boost? What do you guys think?

The reason i'm confused is because when I match MCs to ISDs I come up with this (including patch upgrade).

ISD has stronger weapons/armour = MC has stronger and redundant shields.
ISD has 4 Turbos and 2 Ions = MC has 4 Turbos and 2 Ions
ISD has Tractor Beam ability = MC has Boost Shields ability
ISD has Hangar = MC has ?????

I don't believe the MC's current slight speed increase vs. ISD counts because it is not significant enough to be considered as either an ability or advantage.

That is the reason I was asking for a Hangar (but now speed boost) and why i'm kind of wondering whether or not it should be a Boost Engines ability instead of base-speed upgrade.

What do you guys think?

lol, "agressor, the almighty god of space combat"... i was laughin so hard bout that sentence.. man.. get 1-2 bomber squads in there to take out the specialweapon and they are useless n doomed.
only thing overpowered at the consortium: the fighters in a 1on1. for real.. play against someone good, take your "almighty god" to try somthing and get screwed by isd's and bombers. ^^

PS: i second that idea with the hangar bay on mc's. canon and that way it can defend itself against bombingruns

When I look at it, the Imperials have another advantage over the Rebels in terms of starfighters which I think should be addressed. If you look at it, the Imperials have the TIE Fighter, Interceptor, Bomber, Defender and Phantom.

Technically the TIE fighter and Interceptor are the same thing, the only difference between the two is that the Interceptor is slightly faster and can take a little more punishment than the standard TIE's.

Examining them closer reveals that the TIE Bomber, Defender AND Phantom can all shoot Proton Torpedoes. In comparison, the Rebels have 4 fighters: the X-Wing, the Y-Wing, the A-Wing and the B-Wing; and only two of these fighters can shoot Proton Torpedoes.

Actually, you are mistaken. The TIE Phantom lacks proton torpedoes, therefore the Rebels and Imperials are balanced in the fighter/bomber ratio. Besides, the rebel fighters outperform their Imperial counterparts anyway:
X-wings (S foils) > TIE Fighters
Y-wings (ion cannons) > TIE Bombers
A-wings ("lure" ability) > TIE Interceptors
B-wings (As a bomber) > TIE Defenders / TIE Defenders (As a fighter) > B-wings

I know some of you would disagree with me about B-wings being better bombers than TIE Defenders but let me explain. B-wings have s-foils which makes then harder targets to hit and damage. The s-foils also increase the frequency of the bombing runs the B-wings can make when attacking enemy cruisers. The only advantage that the Defender has over the B-wing is the "boost weapons" ability which severely diminishes the Defender's speed making it an easy target for corvettes.

Now I agree with Tears, and I hope you all agree also that the Rebels were superior in space in terms of fighters and space pilot skill (not really factoring the addition of the TIE Defender, Elite Imp Pilots or experimental TIEs).

I therefore suggest that to counter this balance is to give the X-Wing Proton Torpedoes vs. Capital Ships and space installations. Also possibly giving the A-Wing Concussion Missles (but that's only conditional). This would match the Rebels with Imperials in terms of Proton Torpedo ability and also boost the X-Wing more. It wouldn't unbalance it with TIE Fighters because it had protons in canon + they are against capital ships + X-wings whooped TIE Fighters anyway.

Giving proton torpedoes to X-wings would render Y-wings and B-wings completely useless. In this game the primary function of the X-wing is to counter enemy fighters not destroy capital ships. X-wings would have no weaknesses if given proton torpedoes since they could destroy Tartans without any difficulty and enemy fighters would be incapable of destroying them because of the S-foils ability.

Correct me If I'm wrong but aren't there 7 X-wings in a single squadron? Imagine 7 X-wings, each shooting one proton torpedo at a target; in one bombing run a single X-wing squadron could wipe out a HP on an enemy Capital ship. Now imagine 6 or 7 squadrons, with s-foils engaged, making a bombing run on different HP's; in one bombing run 7 squadrons (each heading for a different HP) of X-wings could cripple a Star Destroyer, and if the s-foils are engaged the TIE's would be incapable of even landing a single shot on the speedy X-wings. That's not balanced or fair.

PS: The rebel pilots were anything but elite. They were a bunch of simple folk just supporting a cause they believed in and were poorly trained compared to the elite Imperial pilots, who were trained at academies as opposed to being self-taught. By the way the TIE's were the ones doing the "whooping," take for example the Battle of Yavin where the best of the Rebel pilots had difficulty taking on a few TIE's (I believe the number of TIE's and X-wings were even in that particular battle as well).


Also, for Mon Calamari Cruisers. I think it is probably for the best to increase the speed. Though i'm not really sure whether it should be as an ability like the Corvettes, or as a n/a speed boost? What do you guys think?


I don't think they should be speed demons, a very slight increase in speed is all that is needed.

The reason i'm confused is because when I match MCs to ISDs I come up with this (including patch upgrade).

ISD has stronger weapons/armour = MC has stronger and redundant shields.
ISD has 4 Turbos and 2 Ions = MC has 4 Turbos and 2 Ions
ISD has Tractor Beam ability = MC has Boost Shields ability
ISD has Hangar = MC has ?????


You are underestimating the abilities of the Mon Calamari Cruiser, I'll go through a brief list of key advantages the MC has over the Imperial Star Destroyer:

The Imperial Star Destroyer has a shield hardpoint - MC doesn't

The fact that the MC lacks a shield generator HP really gives the MC a huge advantage over the Imperial Star Destroyer. If a few bombers can successfully take out the Imperial Star Destroyer's Shield HP then the MC could easily emerge victorious. The Imperials on the other hand can't utilize this strategy for obvious reasons.

The MC fires more turbolaser shots per round and in more frequent procession. The Mon Cal can outshoot the Star Destroyer which means it has yet another advantage over the Star Destroyer.

The MC is slightly faster. Not a great advantage but an advantage all the same.

The MC has it's weapons branched out, rendering any flanking maneuvers useless. As Rust_Lord so eloquently stated, if the Mon Cal moves into the Star Destroyer's blind spot then the Star Destroyer is doomed.

The MC also has stronger shields and a slightly faster shield refresh rate than the Star Destroyer allowing the MC to recover faster from previous attacks than the Imperial Star Destroyer.

The MC can turn quicker than a Star Destroyer, all the better to flank a Star Destroyer.

At this point (even with the stat increases for the Imperial Star Destroyer) the Mon Calamari Cruiser has a number of advantages over the Star Destroyer, some of the advantages are trivial but some are very significant and could mean the difference between victory or defeat.

I don't believe the MC's current slight speed increase vs. ISD counts because it is not significant enough to be considered as either an ability or advantage.

That is the reason I was asking for a Hangar (but now speed boost) and why i'm kind of wondering whether or not it should be a Boost Engines ability instead of base-speed upgrade.

At this point the MC and Star Destroyer are quite balanced against each other, Actually the MC has more balance issues against the Consortium Cruisers than against the Imperial Cruisers. In fact, the Mon Calamari Cruiser is defenseless against Keldabes and Aggressors; No amount of shield power can defend against Mass Driver cannons and the mega-cannons of the Aggressor.

Nerfing the Keldabes and Aggressors is the best course of action. Not only would nerfing the Keldabes and Aggressors balance out the Rebel Cruisers vs. Consortium Cruisers but it would also balance the Empire Cruisers vs. Consortium Cruisers. This is a solution that would require less time and energy for the designers at Petroglygh and therefore would take less time to be implemented into a future patch.

lol, "agressor, the almighty god of space combat"... i was laughin so hard bout that sentence.. man.. get 1-2 bomber squads in there to take out the specialweapon and they are useless n doomed.
only thing overpowered at the consortium: the fighters in a 1on1. for real.. play against someone good, take your "almighty god" to try somthing and get screwed by isd's and bombers. ^^

PS: i second that idea with the hangar bay on mc's. canon and that way it can defend itself against bombingruns


You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, the Aggressor IS a god in space combat, look at the facts, Aggressors...
- Have extremely strong shields.
- Have the highest HP health of any cruiser.
- Can use the "self-destruct" ability thereby taking everything down with it.
- Are practically unaffected by proton torpedoes. One proton torpedo does less than 5% HP damage to it's HP's. 6-7 bombing runs are required to destroy just one of it's HP's.
- Can wipe out a corvette with one blast from it's main cannon.
- Can move through asteroid fields without any difficulty.

By the way your strategy is rendered useless if crusaders are covering the Aggressor. Bombers are slow and can be picked off without any difficulty by corvettes and fighters before they even have a chance of attacking the Aggressor. Even if the main cannons are destroyed the Aggressor can still use it's "self-destruct" ability which has the potential of destroying half of your fleet.

*small voice* Maybe this thread should be renamed to really long posts thread ;) lol

Technically the TIE fighter and Interceptor are the same thing, the only difference between the two is that the Interceptor is slightly faster and can take a little more punishment than the standard TIE's.

Actually, you are mistaken. The TIE Phantom lacks proton torpedoes, therefore the Rebels and Imperials are balanced in the fighter/bomber ratio. Besides, the rebel fighters outperform their Imperial counterparts anyway:
X-wings (S foils) > TIE Fighters
Y-wings (ion cannons) > TIE Bombers
A-wings ("lure" ability) > TIE Interceptors
B-wings (As a bomber) > TIE Defenders / TIE Defenders (As a fighter) > B-wings


This is a very odd way of comparing fighters. I totally agree with you that XWings are better than TIE/lns and Y-Wings are better than TIE Bombers, but you've compared completely different fighters later on.

Firstly, you yourself stated that Interceptors and lns were basically the same thing, so why are you also saying one's a lot better? Also, it's wrong to compare A-Wings to Interceptors - the A-Wing is the best fighter the rebels have, and should be compared to the TIE Defender.

I'm not against the idea of the TIE Defender so long as it has a heavy cost, as it's basically the best multi-role fighter in the game.

The B-Wing is the best bomber though, as it should be. They kick out a lot of firepower - in fact, they are the only effective weapons that I have against Keldabes.


I know some of you would disagree with me about B-wings being better bombers than TIE Defenders but let me explain. B-wings have s-foils which makes then harder targets to hit and damage. The s-foils also increase the frequency of the bombing runs the B-wings can make when attacking enemy cruisers. The only advantage that the Defender has over the B-wing is the "boost weapons" ability which severely diminishes the Defender's speed making it an easy target for corvettes.


uh, I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Defenders are easy targets for corvettes anyway. A single Corellian Gunship can crush Defender sqauds in seconds - but that is true for any Corvette vs Fighter engagements.


Giving proton torpedoes to X-wings would render Y-wings and B-wings completely useless. In this game the primary function of the X-wing is to counter enemy fighters not destroy capital ships. X-wings would have no weaknesses if given proton torpedoes since they could destroy Tartans without any difficulty and enemy fighters would be incapable of destroying them because of the S-foils ability.

Correct me If I'm wrong but aren't there 7 X-wings in a single squadron? Imagine 7 X-wings, each shooting one proton torpedo at a target; in one bombing run a single X-wing squadron could wipe out a HP on an enemy Capital ship. Now imagine 6 or 7 squadrons, with s-foils engaged, making a bombing run on different HP's; in one bombing run 7 squadrons (each heading for a different HP) of X-wings could cripple a Star Destroyer, and if the s-foils are engaged the TIE's would be incapable of even landing a single shot on the speedy X-wings. That's not balanced or fair.


This is precisely why torpedoes are a bad idea for XWings. They would become StarVipers. Personally, I think a simple boost to their HP is all that's needed.


PS: The rebel pilots were anything but elite. They were a bunch of simple folk just supporting a cause they believed in and were poorly trained compared to the elite Imperial pilots, who were trained at academies as opposed to being self-taught. By the way the TIE's were the ones doing the "whooping," take for example the Battle of Yavin where the best of the Rebel pilots had difficulty taking on a few TIE's (I believe the number of TIE's and X-wings were even in that particular battle as well).


That may have been true at the start of the Civil War (i.e the time that EaW represents) but by the time we get to the period that FoC represents, Rebel Command's obsession with keeping it's pilots and troops alive had meant that a disproportinate amount of the rebel forces (compared to the Imperials) were *very* experienced, as they had survived loads of previous engagements, and the Empire's total brutatlity had meant a lot of their best TIE pilots had defected to the Rebels.
At the battle of Endor the Imperial pilots were totally dependant on superior numbers and the Emperor's Battle Meditation to keep up with the rebel pilots.
The Rebel pilots, at that stage, *were* elite.


You are underestimating the abilities of the Mon Calamari Cruiser, I'll go through a brief list of key advantages the MC has over the Imperial Star Destroyer:

<snip>

At this point (even with the stat increases for the Imperial Star Destroyer) the Mon Calamari Cruiser has a number of advantages over the Star Destroyer, some of the advantages are trivial but some are very significant and could mean the difference between victory or defeat.


You make some good points, but a few things to add -

The Mon Cals are supposed to have excellent shielding, that is one of their defining characteristics;

Can we stop trumpeting on about speed. If you can't pin down precisely why a characteristic equates to an advantage then don't mention it, becaue it's meaningless. All this talk about maneverability, speed and blind spots is not only extremely nebulous but is too dependant on outside factors as well - it's all very well saying that the Mon Cal can get into the ISDs blind spot really quickly but if there's no room to do it then that 'advantage' evaporates. That's a tactic, not a unit advantage.


At this point the MC and Star Destroyer are quite balanced against each other, Actually the MC has more balance issues against the Consortium Cruisers than against the Imperial Cruisers. In fact, the Mon Calamari Cruiser is defenseless against Keldabes and Aggressors; No amount of shield power can defend against Mass Driver cannons and the mega-cannons of the Aggressor.


I've yet to play against the upgraded ISD, but I agree about the ZC stuff. That shield leech weapon on the Keldabe appears to have been custom designed to pwn Mon Cals. It's pathetic.


Nerfing the Keldabes and Aggressors is the best course of action. Not only would nerfing the Keldabes and Aggressors balance out the Rebel Cruisers vs. Consortium Cruisers but it would also balance the Empire Cruisers vs. Consortium Cruisers. This is a solution that would require less time and energy for the designers at Petroglygh and therefore would take less time to be implemented into a future patch.


No, I don't agree with this. Nerfing ZC cruisers is a good course of action bu they are issues with other units that won't be fixed simply by nerfing the consortium.


You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, the Aggressor IS a god in space combat, look at the facts, Aggressors...
- Have extremely strong shields.
- Have the highest HP health of any cruiser.
- Can use the "self-destruct" ability thereby taking everything down with it.
- Are practically unaffected by proton torpedoes. One proton torpedo does less than 5% HP damage to it's HP's. 6-7 bombing runs are required to destroy just one of it's HP's.
- Can wipe out a corvette with one blast from it's main cannon.
- Can move through asteroid fields without any difficulty.

By the way your strategy is rendered useless if crusaders are covering the Aggressor. Bombers are slow and can be picked off without any difficulty by corvettes and fighters before they even have a chance of attacking the Aggressor. Even if the main cannons are destroyed the Aggressor can still use it's "self-destruct" ability which has the potential of destroying half of your fleet.

You're preaching to the converted here. I don't despise the Agressor as much as the Keldabe but I do think it was still overdone. Both ZC capital ships are needlessly better - they can be built anywhere, they can easily move through asteroids (I don't think Petro actually bothered to explain that boost) and their special abilities are off the scale. The Self - Destruct idea was *way* overdone. It basically means that whatever bombers you send to destroy the cruiser are forfeit.

Personally I think there should be massive disadvantages to the ZC self-destruct. Such as not being able to bring in any more cruisers to replace it, or their being a *huge* cost to replace it (c10000 or more). That'll make it a true weapon of desperation rather than the cheat it is at the moment.

OK, why why why do you folks all (or at least some of you) want
MC = ISD = Keldable ??? (in terms of balance)
Why does an MC need to be equal to an ISD 1on1 when these two are totally different ships?? An MC is a cap ship, an ISD is a cap ship/carrier.
Yes true, if an IMP brings in 5 ISDs these will defeat 5 Mon Cals and support, however a Rebel player can simply instead bring in 20.000+ credits worth of fighters/bombers which will tear the ISDs to shreds - something an imp player couldn't.
The Empire, the Rebellion and the ZC are different in play style, economy and pop cap - it's IMO foolish to make 1on1 comparisons between similar ships.
Would you say that the Rebs are underpowered because they can't build a Super-Mon-Calamari-Cruiser and the Empire can?
The only real balance issues IMO appear when a player can execute a strategy that is hardly or not at all counterable even at the same economical situation (e.g. if 1200 credits worth of X-Wings would own a Tartan) or if the same strat with one faction is simply "better" than with another faction (e.g. Starviper spam > X-Wing spam, although they cost exactly the same amount of credits and pop cap (at least in GC)).
The only real way to find out balance issues IMO is to really play a game (against a human opponent at best) instead of discussing artificially constructed examples or calculations.

Erm, for those who can't seem to figure out how to beat an Aggressor without it delf destructing right next to you, send in bombers to blow up it's ENGINES, then the TurboLasers, and then the bottom Main cannon (the bottom fires the red ball of plasma or whatever it is), cuz on frigates (Alliance Assault Frigate MK II and Victory Star Destroyer) it's red ball will destroy one hardpoint at a time, if your shields are down it's Turbolasers will destroyer it faster than it's red ball can, if it's facing an Imperial Star Destroyer or a Mon Calamari Cruiser, it takes TWO shots from it's bottom cannon to destroy a hardpoint if I'm not mistaken (except for maybe Tractor Beam and Hangar), and once your shields are down it will, just like the frigates, destroy you faster than the bottom main cannon will.

Hope that helps all of you having trouble with Aggressors.

(<GASP> I made a long post! I'm becoming one of them!!!! lol)