StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Kuciwalker wrote:Which one was Gerard V? It has sadly been a very long time since I got to play that game

Gerrard V was the planet where the deposed Moff tried to flee after stuffing his personal shuttles full of loot and setting the city's turbolasers against your squadron.

I dislike The SSD's onscreen performance since it serves no purpose than making the standard ISD's seem small and insignificant and then it's blown up as a mere afterthought.

Yes i think i actually despise it (even though it looks real cool).

Anguirus wrote:Yeah, I'll never understand why the V-wing and ARC switched roles for that game. They made the V-wing the bomber (still the fastest and best bomber in the game) and the ARC a superiority fighter. They also took away the ARC's rear gunners! Swine.

Yeah, that was pretty weird. In the game, since each faction had an interceptor, fighter and bomber, the V-Wing should have been the interceptor, and the ARC-170 should have been the bomber (still, the fastest out of all the various factions' bombers).
Since the Rebel Y-Wing had a rear gunner, the ARC should definitely have one. I mean, it actually does in canon.

Battlefront 2 is rife with little mishaps like this that keep it from being mediocre, instead of the incredible game it could be.
Electrostaff-wielding, highly agile MagnaGuards, anyone?

Anguirus wrote:Anyway, it goes without saying that the Vong suck.

RogueIce wrote:Actually, those would appear to be those Twi'lek Chir'daki "Death Seed" fighters. The X-TIE is an X-wing fuselage with TIE fighter wings.

I knew they were Chir'dakis, but I thought they were also called something else like TIE-X, and I got the name confused with X-TIE.

NRS Guardian wrote:

RogueIce wrote:Actually, those would appear to be those Twi'lek Chir'daki "Death Seed" fighters. The X-TIE is an X-wing fuselage with TIE fighter wings.

I knew they were Chir'dakis, but I thought they were also called something else like TIE-X, and I got the name confused with X-TIE.

Oh God I had forgotten about those. Those are easily my most hated. I can't f'ing believe that even Stackpole the fighter-wanker would make overhyped Uglies into a viable fighter. It was fucking stupid, but then again so was the rest of "The Bacta War."

Aquatain wrote:I dislike The SSD's onscreen performance since it serves no purpose than making the standard ISD's seem small and insignificant and then it's blown up as a mere afterthought.

Yes i think i actually despise it (even though it looks real cool).

It's just not possible to portrait the ship realistically and keep cinematic effects. That is to say, it should have easily destroyed the whole rebel fleet at Endor by itself. Consequently, it represented an unassailable obstacle just as much as the death star did, and had to go in a "cheap" way for the heroes to win. Just like the DS, the battle of Naboo and Yavin (and the large majority of trek battles).

Unfortunately, the EU seems to have suffered from the fighters > executor brainbug and only made the situation worse. Otherwise it would have been the perfect opportunity to make the ship portraited in a way more fitting its position and size.

I like the Strike Class Cruiser, both the original and the newer version. The Carrack isn't bad either.

One 'ship' I dislike though is the Torpedo Sphere, though as far as I know, it was only ever seen in WEG's Imperial Sourcebook.

Totally. It's just...no.

Master_Baerne wrote:Totally. It's just...no.

Care to elaborate on what you mean?

I love the concept of an Ugly. Trying to make them viable vs. military grade fighters is annoying as fuck, though.

What tweaks me off is the one-shot capital ships we see in comics. Tagge and Giel's ships, as Saxton labels them, wind up looking like oversized SD hulls with an odd top thrown on for 'variety'. Worse than both is this:

Saxton Pic Link

Just what the Christ is that? Generic wedges with new bridges is fine in moderation, but what the fuck?

That's one of the unexplained wierd ships from Dark Empire. God knows what it is though.

What are both of them? The smaller one in front even allowing for some artistic license due to it being a comic is too long relative to its with and height to be a standard Star Destroyer. The profile's all wrong.

I've got a funny feeling the smaller one is meant to be an ISD, but some of Dark Empire's artwork was so bad, it's hard to tell.

I think most of Marvel's artwork output was consistently awful for it's Star Wars comics.

Well Dark Empire was by Dark Horse, which is, I believe DC owned, although I'm not sure if it was at the time DE was printed.

SirNitram wrote:I love the concept of an Ugly. Trying to make them viable vs. military grade fighters is annoying as fuck, though.

What tweaks me off is the one-shot capital ships we see in comics. Tagge and Giel's ships, as Saxton labels them, wind up looking like oversized SD hulls with an odd top thrown on for 'variety'. Worse than both is this:

Saxton Pic Link

Just what the Christ is that? Generic wedges with new bridges is fine in moderation, but what the fuck?

The engine section looks like it's off the MC90 from that book. Not exactly, but certainly inspired by.

Good point, I don't like most of the comic stuff.

And to contribute one more, which the "Refit a Dreadnaught" thread reminded me of: the Assault Frigate Mk II.



Seriously, what the fuck. They took an Assault Frigate Mk I, cut half of it off, and want to peddle it as something new and improved? Yeesh. The thing just looks retarded.

And I can't believe the POS version of the Assault Frigate makes it into the SW.com Databank, and the Mk I is only mentioned...

I assume that is the way it looks like after it crashed into an asteroid or something really, really hard, right? Right?

Batman wrote:I assume that is the way it looks like after it crashed into an asteroid or something really, really hard, right? Right?

Nope. Look it up in the Databank. Despite the addition of some color, it's still basically a chopped in half real Assault Frigate (I hate even having to acknowledge this thing as an Assault Frigate...).

Wow. We finally have a capital-scale Ugly. Stackpole would be proud.

The Mk 1 Assault FFG would be okay if it didn't have that bigass 'messy-ream-of-paper' boxy-as-shit 'dewlap' below the bow and more hull plating to cover that mess of exposed decks. The Mk2 is simply a flying abortion.

RogueIce wrote:And to contribute one more, which the "Refit a Dreadnaught" thread reminded me of: the Assault Frigate Mk II.

*snip image*

Seriously, what the fuck. They took an Assault Frigate Mk I, cut half of it off, and want to peddle it as something new and improved? Yeesh. The thing just looks retarded.

And I can't believe the POS version of the Assault Frigate makes it into the SW.com Databank, and the Mk I is only mentioned...

In addition to looking quite ugly, its almost useless as a unit in game.

I'd not mind too much having a bunch of variations on the SD 'theme'. But things like that godawful oversized... blob piss me off. No heritage to the existing models.

I'm not too fond of either Assault Frigate. How the fuck is ripping off a ton of the Dreadnaught's armor and cramming in exposed decks and other vulnerable parts supposed to make it a better ship? The idea of the Rebels taking an older warship and making some cost-efficient modifications to it is good, but the execution was pretty messed up.

That's still nothing compared to the retardation of the new, "improved" Assault Frigate mk. 2. A flying Dreadnaught-head, who the fuck would think of such a thing?