Matthew on 1/12/2005 at 19:01
As long as it doesn't turn into Frontier.
Chimpy Chompy on 1/12/2005 at 19:04
Nah, I-War forces all combat to happen at relatively low velocities to keep things simple. (low compared to the speeds you cross systems at anyway). Also computer assistance tries to keep your ship flying in the direction the nose is pointing, although there is a lag, and you can turn it off for when you want to try something clever.
ZylonBane on 1/12/2005 at 19:24
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
In my experience cmbat in the the I-Wars tends to involve a lot of circle-strafing and hit-and-run, with fancy tricks like pivoting on your axes as you shoot past. As opposed to the close-range contest of who can turn the tightest at higher speed that the likes of Freespace or TIE fighter provide.
It's my understanding that in I-War you control a large, slow-moving corvette. The slow pace of combat and all the computer assistance is probably the only thing that makes the realistic physics tolerable.
Realistic physics applied to a small, fast-moving fighter, attempting to engage many other small, fast-moving fighters, seems to be a situation which would require geometrically faster thought and reflexes on the part of the pilot. This is why real spaceships have computers do these things.
Chimpy Chompy on 1/12/2005 at 21:25
Not quite. The acceleration of the corvette isn't fantastic, but it can go as fast as any fighter. Just takes a little longer to change the velocity vector.
A fighter-based version would require slightly sharper reflexes perhaps - that or reducing the power of large ships to give you more of a chance, but it's entirely doable. The I-War games did offer brief sessions of fighter action (by remote-control in I-War, and the Interceptor in I-War 2 which is almost a fighter), and I see plenty of potential there.
Shadowcat on 2/12/2005 at 00:09
Something like this certainly wouldn't play out like your typical WW2-style space fighter (but then you wouldn't want it to). If you're thinking how difficult Newtonian physics would make something like Freespace 2, then I think you're viewing the idea from the wrong angle.
The gameplay would be fairly different. All the enemy fighters would be operating under the same physics as you of course, and so the tactics would doubtless be notably different to those employed in something like FS2. Combat would likely be a little more tactical and a little less seat-of-your-pants follow-the-leader. It might not appeal to the same audience either, but I would sure love to see someone try it out. If you can make the player feel as if they're in a believable situation, then they'll be more willing to deal with the difficulties that come with a more realistic territory.
The image I like best is a large-scale fighter assault on a capital ship, with big strafing manoeuvres as you swoop past (set your velocity vector, and then just spin on your axes as you pass the target, training your guns on it the whole time). That's something that th WW2-style games can't do. You'd probably want to ensure that the player's fighter was magically a little less likely to fall foul of point defense systems, though :)
Banksie on 2/12/2005 at 01:14
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
It's my understanding that in I-War you control a large, slow-moving corvette. The slow pace of combat and all the computer assistance is probably the only thing that makes the realistic physics tolerable.
Slow is a very relative term, in the first game you flew a naval corvette that had a good turn of speed and was in many ways an excellent compromise in speed, firepower and self protection. You were always a lot faster than the civilian ships that you either escorted or the converted Indie fighter ships that you frequently fought in the early stages of the game.
Even then not all the fights were based on the corvette in I-war. You got two or three missions which involved remote controlling T-fighters using precisely the same control system as the corvette. These things hooned around rapidly and one engagement has you using a T-fighter to fight off a squad of the Indie equivalent craft. The realistic physics and ability to kick the computer assist on and off presented no detriment to the fun. The real hassle was the T-fighter was sufficiently fast that you kept hitting the range limits of the remote link interface.
Banksie on 2/12/2005 at 01:17
Quote Posted by Shadowcat
The image I like best is a large-scale fighter assault on a capital ship, with big strafing manoeuvres as you swoop past (set your velocity vector, and then just spin on your axes as you pass the target, training your guns on it the whole time). That's something that th WW2-style games can't do. You'd probably want to ensure that the player's fighter was magically a little less likely to fall foul of point defense systems, though :)
That was precisely the kind of attack you tended to do with the fighters in I-war. To keep the fighter alive use of the lateral thrusters to jink a little while firing was vital.
Shadowcat on 2/12/2005 at 01:48
Quote Posted by Banksie
That was precisely the kind of attack you tended to do with the fighters in I-war.
Yes indeed, although I have to concede that ignatios has a point in that the fighter missions were rather few.
Still, I clearly remember one fighter assault mission (I think against a station rather than a capital ship) that was exactly the sort of thing I had in mind, except on a much smaller scale. You could only dock the two T-Fighters to a Corvette though, and even with a Carrier present I can't think of any missions that really presented the kind of large-scale battle I'd love to see if a game like this happened.
I'm criminally lacking in I-War 2 gameplay time, so there might be some good fighter action lurking in there that I don't yet know about.
Banksie on 2/12/2005 at 02:00
Quote Posted by Shadowcat
I'm criminally lacking in I-War 2 gameplay time, so there might be some good fighter action lurking in there that I don't yet know about.
Not that I recall, I-war 2 by default limited you to the four main ships which could carry two of the turret fighters. But not any large fighter engagements that I remember either. There were a few fleet battles towards the endgame that involved around twenty ships per fleet duking it out. Those certainly kept you on your toes and busy.
Although once you had the anti-matter streamer and the patcom then fleet battles generally tended to be short and sharp affairs. Close at speed to streamer range, use the streamer to eliminate the capital ship in short order then recharge your shields and rinse, lather, repeat.
I-war 2 suffered a bit in having a less useful auto-pilot that limited your chances to remote control craft for long in a fight. I also deeply missed the gunnery position from the first game - I-war 2 always felt like you were flying lumbering fighters. With smart use of the gunnery console in I-war you really felt like you were flying a heavily weaponed naval corvette, padlock mode was a godsend for doing rapid 'annoyance' missile launches and firing at ships behind the dreadnaught to give them pause for thought about flying up your tailpipe.
Such a great game I-war.
Assidragon on 2/12/2005 at 02:41
Quote Posted by Shadowcat
The image I like best is a large-scale fighter assault on a capital ship, with big strafing manoeuvres as you swoop past (set your velocity vector, and then just spin on your axes as you pass the target, training your guns on it the whole time). That's something that th WW2-style games can't do. You'd probably want to ensure that the player's fighter was magically a little less likely to fall foul of point defense systems, though :)
It wouldn't work in Freespace2 even if you could do it though.
First, the defence itself. In FS2 the least dangerous way to fight a ship larger than you: find a spot where the (major) defence guns can't see you and pound from there, but this doesn't really yield too much result unless you are using Cyclops torpedoes and can blast the whole ship apart. The other choice is to expose yourself to the ship's defensive fire, and in my experience you constantly need to use your afterburner in that case - if nothing else, the beam cannon and the missile batteries make sure that not flying with aft in zig-zag pattern gets severely punished... no way I can imagine strafing ships alive for more than seconds against a missile battery/beam cannon equipped ship, unless they can strafe zig-zaggy. Flying predictable is suicide. :erg:
Also, serious weapons need a little time to lock into the target, even if that means the subsystem of a ship... to me it was hard enough to do so while trying to fly towards that spot (and evading all that crap flying towards me with the intention of blowing me to bits), no way I can imagine acquiring a lock while passing by strafing... :confused: the only weapon you could effectively work with in such manner are the Stiletto II missiles (which will only disable subsystems but not do large damage on the hull), or the Maxim (which in turn will shake your ship so much you can't really aim). :/
