Databank Update: Empire At War Battlefield Assets

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2006-02-16 05:15pm

When was the last time the EU produced a ship design we didn't Gag at? Really.. its a valid question and I can't remember back that far...

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-02-16 05:25pm

Lazarus wrote: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!

The Assault Frigate that you know and love still exists, and hasn't been retconned. This new ship is supposed to be the rare Assault Frigate mark II.

Dark Primus · Post by **Dark Primus** » 2006-02-16 05:30pm

Wasn't the Assault Frigate built some time AFTER the Battle of Endor???
If that is the case then how come there is a Assault Frigate II in this game?

Why couldn't the game creators stick to canon starships?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-02-16 05:33pm

Wasn't the Assault Frigate built some time AFTER the Battle of Endor???

I guess that's a retcon then?

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2006-02-16 05:34pm

Dark Primus wrote:Wasn't the Assault Frigate built some time AFTER the Battle of Endor???

in all the games it's in, it's a pre-Endor design.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-02-16 05:38pm

I'd like someone with the game to post their impressions: I'd really like to know if the scaling is really that bad.

Depressingly, I actually prefer some of the old WEG designs: my only exposure to them is in HW2:Warlords, but the ships in that game at least show a similarity of design and linear improvement, whereas what I've seen of the EaW ships features the fucking 'Assault Frigate Mk2'.

DesertFly · Post by **DesertFly** » 2006-02-16 08:58pm

Did you guys read the article for the Assault Frigate, mk. 2?

Starwars.com wrote:Not as numerous as the more common "mark I," the Mark II nonetheless saw heavy use, particularly early in the Galactic Civil War. ... Though a few Rebel shipyards continued to use the Mark II modification and manufacturing scheme, the Rebellion's internally-designed Mark I stood the test of time. It even remained part of the New Republic fleet in the nascent government's formative years.

I don't see where you're getting wank on this ship from. The site makes it clear that it is simply an alternate design, and not a very successful one at that. I don't see anything about it being more powerful than comparable ships.

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2006-02-16 11:10pm

I don't know why they didn't use the original Assault Frigate, I like the mk. I quite a bit it's definitely in my top 10 of SW ships. Also, yes the Tartan is stupid when they have the Carrack it should only be like 150-200m like it seems the game intended it to be. Though I do have to say the non-EAW-created capships are some of the best looking and most accurately done in any SW video game, particularly the VSD and Mon Cal Cruiser.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-02-16 11:42pm

DesertFly wrote:I don't see where you're getting wank on this ship from. The site makes it clear that it is simply an alternate design, and not a very successful one at that. I don't see anything about it being more powerful than comparable ships.

Did you read the Databank? The mk. II was not unsucessful, it was just not as common because it wasn't internally designed by the Rebels, and the Rendili design team was purged. It even states that the mk. II came about because some people at Rendili saw room for improvement, and that the ship had Mon Cal backup shield generators.

I called the ship wank because if it's built from a Dreadnaught like they say it is, then the ship was completely hacked apart (I think only the head remains), yet it's still an effective warship.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-02-17 05:24am

If it really just contains the head of a Dreadnaught and is still 700 m long, then most of it is brand new and I don't see why they even bothered scavenging the Dreadnaughts just for their heads.

Unless they give good head.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2006-02-17 11:49am

VT-16 wrote: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".

Assault Frigate, 700 m. We now also have the Acclamator "star frigate" variant.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-02-17 12:30pm

And the Immobilizer 418! 8)

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2006-02-17 02:11pm

Okay, this is just plain strange.

In-game stats, apparently. Somewhat...odd... even for game stats.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-02-17 03:35pm

Aaah, they still have that stupid "capital ship" classification for the Imperator? Ugh. Maybe it symbolizes ship-of-the-line?

At least there's frigates all the way up to Victory SDs. >D

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2006-02-18 07:47am

Aside from nothing else matching established stats, yes.