Databank Update: Empire At War Battlefield Assets

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-02-15 03:18am

Vechicles and vessels from the EaW game is detailed in this OS Databank update. I particulary found the "Broadside Missile Cruiser" interesting...:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/update ... 60214.html

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-02-15 03:40am

Meh. I don't like any of those ships. Blech.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-02-15 03:57am

This is a good update that sheds light on all the new units in EAW. I did notice that they fucked up the Assault Frigate mk. 2 though. They basically copied WEG's stats for the mk. 1, saying that the ship is 700 meters long when it's obviously little more than just the head of a Dreadnaught. WEG strikes again.

VT-16, unfortunately it looks like in-game classifications like "corvette" are nothing but game mechanics. The Tartan is 600 meters long, making it a real cruiser.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2006-02-15 05:40am

Wouldn't have a laser-cannon made more sense for the AT-AA?

Good things are the return of the diamond-boron-missiles (until then only mentioned in Shadows of the Empire) and the things the TIE-Mauler can do with its treads.

Bad are classifications like Broadside-cruiser, the fact, that it is a KDY-design, the question how effective missile-ships are in the age of turbolasers and PD-cannons (although thats were the DB-missiles come in handy) and WTF is the purpose of the Tartan-Cruiser? Isn't that role already occupied by the Lancer-frigate and who in his right mind would build a 600 meter long ship only armed with anti-starfighter-weaponary?

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-02-15 06:13am

The Lancer comes a lot later, but yeah, the Tartan is way too big for its role. The Carrack, which is an older ship, can be fitted with 20 laser cannons in addition to its 10 heavy turbolasers. They should have either made the Tartan a corvette (which is what they classify it as in-game), or given it more weapons.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2006-02-15 07:51am

The capships are meh, but I rather like the heavy Rebel tank.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2006-02-15 08:30am

Did you read the part about the SPMA-T?

More modern materials and lighter alloys, my ass. Seems Pablo stroke again.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2006-02-15 08:43am

Yeah, I did, but it didn't bother me all that much. Even in a stagnant culture, when you have your first major war in a thousand years, you get some small amount of innovation in the next twenty or so.

The Clone Wars using comparatively "obsolete" technology has been a staple of Star Wars literature, so right or wrong, I don't know if I'd blame Pablo.

...wait a sec.

It's only 20 meters long?

And it has the same firepower as the gigundo SPHA-T?

Okay. Fuck Pablo, or whoever wrote that up. That's a little nuts. It's like saying that in twenty years we'll have an antimaterial rifle that's as powerful as a modern tank cannon.

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2006-02-15 09:26am

What the blank is this thing
http://www.starwars.com/databank/starsh ... rigate_ii/
And why is it so bleeding ugly!

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-02-15 10:10am

Crossroads Inc. wrote:What the blank is this thing
http://www.starwars.com/databank/starsh ... rigate_ii/
And why is it so bleeding ugly!

It's a wanky, rarely used "mark II" version of the modified Dreadnaught (aka "Assault Frigate"). Instead of merely stripping off parts of the ship and adding some fins, they basically hacked off everything except the Dreadnaught's head. It's still supposed to be a MORE capable ship though. Yeah, it's pretty stupid.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2006-02-15 10:54am

Personally I like that they recognized that the TIE Mauler is, in fact, not looking much like a Century CAV.

That is, it's not the same "TIE Tank".

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-02-15 04:28pm

They basically copied WEG's stats for the mk. 1, saying that the ship is 700 meters long when it's obviously little more than just the head of a Dreadnaught. WEG strikes again.

Could be that they simply built an extensive superstructure around the original Dreadnaught, making it appear like the head of a gigantic Dreadnaught fused with the front of a Nebulon-B frigate and wings on the back. What a crazy design. :P

VT-16, unfortunately it looks like in-game classifications like "corvette" are nothing but game mechanics. The Tartan is 600 meters long, making it a real cruiser.

There is no such thing as 600 meter long cruisers, you illegitimate atheist! By the Prophet's beard, that thing is a frigate and you shall refer to it as such! >P

Seriously, there's too many frigates of that size to call this anything but a frigate. If they're serious about the in-game "corvette" label, though, it's not too much of a stretch to have the Broadside and the Tartan as corvettes surpassing some frigate-classes in size, as I believe the term "corvette" has been used for some RL ships that have had sizes almost rivaling some destroyers.

If anything, the naming scheme of this game helps more than hinders the notion of "frigates" larger than the 400 m mark, as dictated by the WEG Imperial classification system (which only has "cruisers" above that mark), since even Victory-class SDs got classified as "heavy frigates".

And everything in this game has "cruiser" in its name, but most are classified with completely different terms.

EDIT: Was it just me, or did both these new designs look alot smaller than 500 and 600 m, compared to the other models in the game? The concept art for the Broadside had it almost the size of a CR90 Corvette and the in-game model don't look that much bigger, from the screenshots.

PayBack · Post by **PayBack** » 2006-02-15 05:20pm

nightmare wrote:Personally I like that they recognized that the TIE Mauler is, in fact, not looking much like a Century CAV.

That is, it's not the same "TIE Tank".

I haven't played the game yet, but is it possible to win without building TIE Maulers? I just couldn't do it, the idea just seems too silly to me. It would be like the US taking F-15's and putting tank treads and cannons on them.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-02-15 05:22pm

Looking at the profile, it seems used for anti-infantry purposes, anyway, and I believe the ball of the TIE fighter can withstand some blaster-fire. (That big window, on the other hand ;P). It's meant to be a cheap CAV deployed in groups, so it doesn't bother me all that much. But it is silly.

Should have gone with AT-TEs instead. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. =/

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2006-02-15 05:44pm

PayBack wrote:
nightmare wrote:Personally I like that they recognized that the TIE Mauler is, in fact, not looking much like a Century CAV.

That is, it's not the same "TIE Tank".
I haven't played the game yet, but is it possible to win without building TIE Maulers? I just couldn't do it, the idea just seems too silly to me. It would be like the US taking F-15's and putting tank treads and cannons on them.

Sorry, don't have it myself yet, but I'd wager a "yes". They *are* silly, which is why I was glad that they didn't make 'em the regular TIE Tanks, that would have been even worse. (IE, they look nothing like they should and are much sillier than Century CAVs IMHO).

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-02-15 05:56pm

I know they wanted to make new stuff to add to the SW universe, but why couldn't they tie in with another CAV, the PX-10, instead of the hokey "TIE tank"? At least the PX-10 didn't have a large bullseye shaped window in front. =/

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-02-15 06:07pm

Those capship designs are appalling. Oh well.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-02-15 07:01pm

Well, the Tartan apparently ties in with the older Dreadnaught and the Broadside goes well with the "fork"-look of the Demolisher (Droids cartoon) and the giant Imperial carrier (Marvel #61).

There's no real excuse for the Assault Frigate Mk. II, though.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-02-16 03:33am

VT-16 wrote:There's no real excuse for the Assault Frigate Mk. II, though.

It's funny, I think it looks more than a Nebulon-B cut in half than a Dreadnaught.

On a sidenote (which doesn't have to do with the ships portrayed in the Databank update), they've modelled the Corvettes correctly (which is more than ILM did for ROTS

).

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-02-16 08:08am

Sadly, Rob Coleman's quote of "It was supposed to be a predecessor, not the actual Tantive IV" has so far gone unnoticed by Lucas Licensing.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2006-02-16 08:57am

SW.com wrote:The 2-M Repulsor Tank answered that need and proved superior even to Rebel T2-B tanks in initial field tests.
...
10 meters long
Rothana Heavy Engineering

WEG wrote:Imperial Repulsortank 1-M
Ubrikkian Transports
Length : 20.5 Metres

The only similarity between these two imperial repulsortanks would be the designation, 2-M and 1-M, respectively. Imperial naming scheme?

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-02-16 09:34am

VT-16 wrote:EDIT: Was it just me, or did both these new designs look alot smaller than 500 and 600 m, compared to the other models in the game? The concept art for the Broadside had it almost the size of a CR90 Corvette and the in-game model don't look that much bigger, from the screenshots.

It's not just you. Whoever came up with the 600 m length for the Tartan must have been high or something. The worst part is that they made it a Damorian Manufacturing ship, which means the same company has an older design that's a fraction of the size, but superior in every way.

Have you played the free demo yet? During one of the tutorial missions, a group of 4 Tartans take on a Nebulon-B frigate. At 600 m long, that's just retarded.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-02-16 01:46pm

And the Nebulon-B is geared towards anti-STARFIGHTER duty!

Is there a smiley for reverse wanking? =P

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » 2006-02-16 04:45pm

They've murdered the assault frigate! I liked that design from the Thrawn comics, and they have lopped the back off, curved the front, and slapped some gofasta fins on the sides!

I also hate the TIE tank thing. Oh look, a poorly thought through comic book invention, you don't get many of-...oh wait...
And is it just me, or have they made the VSD shorter or wider than it should be? It looks like a squashed daggerhead from the screenshot I saw, not sure If they've done the same with the ISD.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2006-02-16 05:13pm

FTeik wrote:Wouldn't have a laser-cannon made more sense for the AT-AA?

The AT-AA isn't a new vehicle, so it's pretty much defined already.