Thank you for your feedback. The rear close "bump or kill" abuse is exactly the kind of problem I'm looking to fix in these cards.

It seems to me, though, that any turn the AI does has the same problem as the Kturn and doesnt offer a return shot. The 1 foreward bump-or-overshoot is intended, but now that you mention it, may be a problem for aces.

Do you think shiftng the probabilities toward the Kturn, or just dropping them both to 2/6 and putting in 3 hards?

For the rear red range, adding in the hard 3 turns means you have to guess where the AI will go, like a real game. Will he go left, right, K, or straight? IMO, helps keep balance.

you say that the generic kturns "set the ship up to be arcdodged." Given that you're playing interecepters, how many maneuvers could it have done, that you could NOT have arcdodged?

The main issue came with the side red range. In most of my other games, making the AI turn towards the player meant the player would get usually one shot before they flew past, X-wing's would K or swing around. With your AI card, all but the front arc have a 50% of a K-turn. The genaric X-wing did 5 consecutive rounds of only K-turns. If the AI had done speed 1-2 turns from front corner arc, it would have been harder to keep him in my arc for more than 1 round. I would have still procably dodged the AI, but it would have been able get out of mine more then it did.

While it only happened once in my test, the 3 side options to have the AI turn away from the target player sets the AI up to be put into a bad posistion. As most imp craft have a native BR, even if I guess slighly off, a Barrel roll will put the AI back into player arc with ease.

*edit* out of every option in every arc your AI has a 38.5% chance to do a K-turn. So 1 out of every 3 maunvers will be a K-turn. That's pretty predictable. (16 total red+green arcs with d6 each = 96 results, 37 of those outcomes are K-turns), And it get's worse as you get just red range.

Wait, how ARE you keeping 5 consecutive Kturns in arc? what was your approach?

The "breakaway" maneuvers are supposed to be rare, and an attempt to exploit them falls into the trap of other moves, or prevents catching more likely maneuvers. Perhaps that close-flank 3 hard should be a 1 straight, to punish people for expecting a Kturn?

Wait, how ARE you keeping 5 consecutive Kturns in arc? what was your approach?

The "breakaway" maneuvers are supposed to be rare, and an attempt to exploit them falls into the trap of other moves, or prevents catching more likely maneuvers. Perhaps that close-flank 3 hard should be a 1 straight, to punish people for expecting a Kturn?

Because the AI has so many chances for a K-turn he kepts rolling a K result. Every arc except front green /frontside green has a K-turn, usually 50%. It's all he kept doing. I think he wanted to be a TIE Defender pilot.

Wait, how ARE you keeping 5 consecutive Kturns in arc? what was your approach?

The "breakaway" maneuvers are supposed to be rare, and an attempt to exploit them falls into the trap of other moves, or prevents catching more likely maneuvers. Perhaps that close-flank 3 hard should be a 1 straight, to punish people for expecting a Kturn?

Because the AI has so many chances for a K-turn he kepts rolling a K result. Every arc except front green /frontside green has a K-turn, usually 50%. It's all he kept doing. I think he wanted to be a TIE Defender pilot.

That wasnt my question. My question was how even a tie interceptor kept up with a tie defender pilot. With the release of imperial vets, the world wants to know how to beat them.

Wait, how ARE you keeping 5 consecutive Kturns in arc? what was your approach?

The "breakaway" maneuvers are supposed to be rare, and an attempt to exploit them falls into the trap of other moves, or prevents catching more likely maneuvers. Perhaps that close-flank 3 hard should be a 1 straight, to punish people for expecting a Kturn?

Because the AI has so many chances for a K-turn he kepts rolling a K result. Every arc except front green /frontside green has a K-turn, usually 50%. It's all he kept doing. I think he wanted to be a TIE Defender pilot.

That wasnt my question. My question was how even a tie interceptor kept up with a tie defender pilot. With the release of imperial vets, the world wants to know how to beat them.

Kept ending in side arcs or front or I'd arc dodge into them. End result was AI would K-turn again, or then would be closer to the 2nd TIE and change targets, doing another K.

I don't get yet what the 'autocloak at end of round' means for the phantom. What kind of benefit would I have from the cloak at end of round when everyone already shot? Is that just for the advanced mobility next turn? Or forced mobility rather, sicne I have to decloak again to hav a shot

Also I like the Lambada Shuttle, does it dance well? Not sure if you really want to include that one huge base ship into the line-up. I don't think flying the Lambda is particularly fun as it is a frikken brick. After like 2, maybe 3 shots you'll have to rely on assists until it turned around (or you get lucky with spawns in sight). I would skip that, same with the TIE FO,...

I dont see the cloaking at the end of the round being very good either, unless you just decide tonot fie the following turn...and there could be reasons for that, but normally you want to try to be in arc every turn. so you can fire.

I do not suggest putting in the Lambda in the campaign for a player ship. In my experience in the heroes game, a couple friends wnated to upgrade to Yt-1300s and Yt200s they wreck the AI's ability to move. I know others have said the same thing on other posts possibly on this forum, possibly on reddit or boardgame geek, etc.

And its because even the slowest maneuvers for a large ship are mch faster than most ships can move. so the AI has a hard time moviing to compensate, to either attack or just run away, due to the large base movement problems.

A Lambda being a mission arc, or being for specific missions liek the YT-1300 was used in Heroes woks fine since it isnt a player upgraded ship, but once it becomes a regular thing not to menton all the upgrades, the AI suffers tremendously...typically with bumping,or just being waaaay off on the movements.

Moderated the Kturn probabilities slightly, added 3 hards to the rear closing, changed the breakaway 3 hard you exploited into a 1 foreward.

Also, it sounds like you're using the Imperial target priority: (Closest in arc>Closest) instead of the Rebel target priority I put together to try and make up for their lack of 1 hards: (closest in arc>FURTHEST within range 3>Closest)

The large ship problem has gotten me thinking, and I "think" I have an idea for how to handle balance in the campaign as a whole. In HotAC there was the mission chart based upon number of players. Was simple and easy to work with. For the Imperial side, I think it could be modified based on type of player ships. It has been suggested that TIE/ln = 1/2 a ship. A system as such might work where the more points you have determine the number and types of AI.

TIE/ln = .5

Proto = 1

Inter/Adv = 1.5

etc......

Add .5 for each 2-3 PS levels

This is a rough idea, but something like

< 2 points = 2 X/Y (random)

2.5 - 5 = 2 X/Y + 1 ace (XY)

5.5 - 8 = 2 x + 1 ace (A,X,Y)

As the players get better ships and higher ranked, the difficulty will scale. Adding a Large ship/support ship is an Auto 2+ X,Y,B ord load with strike on the large ship.

Moderated the Kturn probabilities slightly, added 3 hards to the rear closing, changed the breakaway 3 hard you exploited into a 1 foreward.

Also, it sounds like you're using the Imperial target priority: (Closest in arc>Closest) instead of the Rebel target priority I put together to try and make up for their lack of 1 hards: (closest in arc>FURTHEST within range 3>Closest)

Well did you put that on the card? *sarcastic, not rude*

That may work for large ships that are actually as effective as 2 ships, but I added the lambada because it isnt. It has pros and cons relative to the normal small based ties, but for the most part they wash out. It may not be a particularly interesting choice, but it doesnt break the gameto choose between a titleless Defender and a lambada shuttle.

That may work for large ships that are actually as effective as 2 ships, but I added the lambada because it isnt. It has pros and cons relative to the normal small based ties, but for the most part they wash out. It may not be a particularly interesting choice, but it doesnt break the gameto choose between a titleless Defender and a lambada shuttle.

Maybe for support ships.

Lamdba = +1 X/Y-wing

Deci = +2 Y-wings

Gonz = +3 B-wings

They have strike vs large with torp loadouts. They will be same PS as their target ship.

Moderated the Kturn probabilities slightly, added 3 hards to the rear closing, changed the breakaway 3 hard you exploited into a 1 foreward.

Also, it sounds like you're using the Imperial target priority: (Closest in arc>Closest) instead of the Rebel target priority I put together to try and make up for their lack of 1 hards: (closest in arc>FURTHEST within range 3>Closest)

Well did you put that on the card? *sarcastic, not rude*

*grumbles* I did originally, then someone complained that the font was too pixilated to read. :/

I'll be getting some tests in this afternoon. Anything catch your eye on the Ybomber AI? I've also got a hand-editied paper copy of the Bwing (with less Kturns, because 2ks are less useful than 5ks)

That may work for large ships that are actually as effective as 2 ships, but I added the lambada because it isnt. It has pros and cons relative to the normal small based ties, but for the most part they wash out. It may not be a particularly interesting choice, but it doesnt break the gameto choose between a titleless Defender and a lambada shuttle.

Maybe for support ships.

Lamdba = +1 X/Y-wing

Deci = +2 Y-wings

Gonz = +3 B-wings

They have strike vs large with torp loadouts. They will be same PS as their target ship.

That seems the sort of thing to build into missions.

I don't get yet what the 'autocloak at end of round' means for the phantom. What kind of benefit would I have from the cloak at end of round when everyone already shot? Is that just for the advanced mobility next turn? Or forced mobility rather, sicne I have to decloak again to hav a shot

I dont see the cloaking at the end of the round being very good either, unless you just decide tonot fie the following turn...and there could be reasons for that, but normally you want to try to be in arc every turn. so you can fire.

Back on this topic, pretty much just for mobilty. I'm really just focusing on something to let the phantom be special and phantomy, without giving it the 4/4 statline that obsolites the tie defender. It's also how the phantom works in Heros, without an outside buff, so it's pretty easy to link the fluff and explain away.

I showed my groups opinion of different ships in that tier list, with the phantom being both god tier and Tie Fighter tier. It's probably at least Shuttle Tier without ADC, but I was trying to push the phantom into the same middle tiers where it's competing with Tie Bomber, Tie Defender (no tite) and Tie Inquisitor. A small bump, taking a mod slot to let it take a free cloak action at PS0 shooting (I like the idea of cloaking before Damaged Cockpit, with Imperial Init) seems like just the thing to let phantom players feel phantomy without encouraging them to tell their fiends to stay low PS so they can 4/4 statline elites.

So in 2 games, with 1 ywing each, 1 bomb was dropped,

That one time, it gave my intercepter w/stealth 3 choices- Barrel roll out of the Bwing's arc, take the bomb and the ion turret, and shoot at the bwing with an asteroid in the way; Barrel roll out of the bomb, take the Bwing and ion turret, or turtle up with a focus, take the bomb and all attacks.

It's a small sample, but the Ywing is at least not spending bombs so often that it's silly. The one bomb it did drop affect the battle (though it might not have, if the Bwing didnt distract me)

A mixed torpedo/bomb loadout might be best- 2 bombs, 2 torpedos and a turret. The Bwing becomes the heavy bomber with Torpedos and Advanced Torpedos, and the Xwing is just a single torpedo and dogfighter. I have yet to test the Awing, as it is not invoved in my scenerio yet, but it will not usually be set to strike AI.

Another game, another effective bomb.

In other news, apparently rebels are XP pinatas. Hit XP is plentiful with lower agility and higher XP, so even when rebels run away growth is fairly rapid.

My thoughts after reading this whole thread (I took some ideas from other posters, so credit to those folks)

What if you played the cmapaign in the same way that you play HOTAC, one ship per player, no wingman. But in addition, each mission calls for a specific number of NPC generic ties per allied player. For example, two players each get their specific pilot, plus 2 ties each. These ties get no experience and no upgrades, they serve to block for the player ships and take some shots. Maybe they are AI controlled, unless an ally is with range 1 (or range 1 of the formation) in which case that player can command them. I feel like this would serve to preserve the feel of HOTAC without all of the complicated mechanics of having multiple ships or wingmen, but it also shows a more realistic portrayal of imperial tactics.

Perhaps some missions would call for other NPC ships when they are mission appropriate, such as bombers for hitting a CR-90. There could also be a mechanic for reinforcements, either at a set time or when you complete a specific objective in mission. I think this system would allow each player to start in a regular tie and progress through tiers of imperial ships, without having to worry about being overpowered early on.

My thoughts after reading this whole thread (I took some ideas from other posters, so credit to those folks)

What if you played the cmapaign in the same way that you play HOTAC, one ship per player, no wingman. But in addition, each mission calls for a specific number of NPC generic ties per allied player. For example, two players each get their specific pilot, plus 2 ties each. These ties get no experience and no upgrades, they serve to block for the player ships and take some shots. Maybe they are AI controlled, unless an ally is with range 1 (or range 1 of the formation) in which case that player can command them. I feel like this would serve to preserve the feel of HOTAC without all of the complicated mechanics of having multiple ships or wingmen, but it also shows a more realistic portrayal of imperial tactics.

Perhaps some missions would call for other NPC ships when they are mission appropriate, such as bombers for hitting a CR-90. There could also be a mechanic for reinforcements, either at a set time or when you complete a specific objective in mission. I think this system would allow each player to start in a regular tie and progress through tiers of imperial ships, without having to worry about being overpowered early on.

You know, I've been thinking pretty much the same thing. Having different numbers and types of NPC ships would allow missions to be more varied and allow each player ship type to shine, perhaps leading an NPC squad if it is of the same type of ship.

It could possibly make scaling easier by keeping the enemy count the same and adding more NPCs with fewer players. And the mission structure could gradually increase in scope and culminate in an epic battle.

My thoughts after reading this whole thread (I took some ideas from other posters, so credit to those folks)

What if you played the cmapaign in the same way that you play HOTAC, one ship per player, no wingman. But in addition, each mission calls for a specific number of NPC generic ties per allied player. For example, two players each get their specific pilot, plus 2 ties each. These ties get no experience and no upgrades, they serve to block for the player ships and take some shots. Maybe they are AI controlled, unless an ally is with range 1 (or range 1 of the formation) in which case that player can command them. I feel like this would serve to preserve the feel of HOTAC without all of the complicated mechanics of having multiple ships or wingmen, but it also shows a more realistic portrayal of imperial tactics.

Perhaps some missions would call for other NPC ships when they are mission appropriate, such as bombers for hitting a CR-90. There could also be a mechanic for reinforcements, either at a set time or when you complete a specific objective in mission. I think this system would allow each player to start in a regular tie and progress through tiers of imperial ships, without having to worry about being overpowered early on.

You know, I've been thinking pretty much the same thing. Having different numbers and types of NPC ships would allow missions to be more varied and allow each player ship type to shine, perhaps leading an NPC squad if it is of the same type of ship.

It could possibly make scaling easier by keeping the enemy count the same and adding more NPCs with fewer players. And the mission structure could gradually increase in scope and culminate in an epic battle.

I like the AI controlled unless at range 1 idea, but having wingmen that level up with you seems fun as hell. Maybe just have it so they are stuck in one of the four starter ships with heavy limits on upgrades? Maybe a cap on mod slots and EPTs?

What if you could buy wing men?

Or maybe just the generic wing men but you could buy up grades for them?

With either one, I am thinking that the player has to pay for them with his XP, the NPC ships do not gain them on their own, that would cut down on record keeping.

What if you could buy wing men?

Or maybe just the generic wing men but you could buy up grades for them?

With either one, I am thinking that the player has to pay for them with his XP, the NPC ships do not gain them on their own, that would cut down on record keeping.

Hell yes. Buy generic wingmen, use your XP to upgrade, they gain no experience. It'd allow them to match up to power creep of the late campaign, while being unable to get superfighters. I'm down for this. Combined with the AI unless at range 1 it'd make it not too powerful

Why dont you rig up some test games, see how it plays out?

I know that for my own version of the campain, I've gon through a couple revisions of ship upgrade slots, enemy spawn rate, and kill XP, and am still not quite satisfied. I'm personally not a fan of AI controlled allies, but if you want to use the training mission I've put together for testing, go for it.

Why dont you rig up some test games, see how it plays out?

I know that for my own version of the campain, I've gon through a couple revisions of ship upgrade slots, enemy spawn rate, and kill XP, and am still not quite satisfied. I'm personally not a fan of AI controlled allies, but if you want to use the training mission I've put together for testing, go for it.

Well, I'd be primarily doing solo play so AI friendlies would be incredibly useful. I Don't nearly have enough parts to do a test game, not for a few days at least. Fortunately I've got both Heroes and Hunters downloaded and ready for use one all is lined up, with the basic stuff printed and ready to go.

Edit: I just started playing X-Wing in the last month so supplies have not I. Fortunately there's a new Micromachine series that has B, X, and Y wings in scale, and a guy from my main forums has about two dozen bases sitting around that he's gonna let me have.

D-d-d-d-double Edit: I would of course consider wingmen to be players, as to not imbalance things.

My works picked up recently, but when I get a chance I'm going to be finishing up the rebel AIs, including Zs, Hwks, and freighters. Then I'll be working on more missions for Hunters, including player-controlled NPCs built into some of them.

My works picked up recently, but when I get a chance I'm going to be finishing up the rebel AIs, including Zs, Hwks, and freighters. Then I'll be working on more missions for Hunters, including player-controlled NPCs built into some of them.

Any plans for solo play rules?