1 minute ago, FTS Gecko said:

I doubt we'll see that; I don't expect any DLC - from everything I've seen so far the dev's are saying "what you see is what you get", with no additional purchases. The game is quite clearly based and balanced around

I was meaning more dropping the starfighters from future Battlefront games. I think one of Battlefront's issues is it is trying to be too many Star Wars games at once. If this goes over well, we might get more games and each one with a bit more focus. So a starfighters game, a shooter, and single-player only instead of trying to roll it all in to one game.

My theory is with the larger acceptance of digital purchase the pressure for things to be more wide with their focus so gamers do not resell the games quickly is diminishing. I think this will allow us to see more games like Fallen Order and more generally for games geared to one audience of Star Wars gamers and not trying to be all things to all Star Wars gamers.

I am not expecting DLC for this. This is just proof of concept to the suits and an effort to win back some goodwill by not putting all that in. They left money on the table with Battlefront by trying to take all the money. I think someone involved with this convinced the suits there is more money to be made with more games that do not each have to carry an enormous load of making all the money. Fallen Order was the first step. Squadrons is the next.

6 hours ago, Frimmel said:

I think someone involved with this convinced the suits there is more money to be made with more games that do not each have to carry an enormous load of making all the money.

I'm not opposed to expandable games, even on an electronic platform, as long as the value proposition is clear and there's no *&@^#*$&^@#$ randomization to what you are already paying for.

I don't mind buying more ships for X-Wing, so I wouldn't mind buying a ship pack add-on for Squadrons (given clear and sufficient value at a reasonable price). But I'm not about spending $19.99 50 times in the hopes of getting more than 20 shards per instance to try promoting my 4-star TIE Bomber to 5-stars out of seven in order to be meta relevant. I frankly don't understand how anyone is okay with that kind of stupid predatory and blatantly anti-fun schema.

When will they make another mobile SW game that isn't that way?

STILL waiting for KOTOR 3......

For those not aware, I started a youtube channel dedicated to Star Wars Squadrons about a month and a half ago. Feel free to check it out in the link below. I just uploaded a new video about why the B-Wing is MIA from Squadrons.

SW Squad Up

So; incoming missile warning: Boost, cut engines, flip 180 and shoot the missile down before it hits you? Woah.

A-Wings/TIE Interceptors the kings of the dogfight, but do little damage to cruises/cap ships. You're not going to win a fleet battle flying all interceptors.

Cruisers/frigates/capitals are no joke. They will mess you up if you get close individually. Needs a co-ordinated team effort to weaken their defences and take them down.

54 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

So; incoming missile warning: Boost, cut engines, flip 180 and shoot the missile down before it hits you? Woah.

A-Wings/TIE Interceptors the kings of the dogfight, but do little damage to cruises/cap ships. You're not going to win a fleet battle flying all interceptors.

Cruisers/frigates/capitals are no joke. They will mess you up if you get close individually. Needs a co-ordinated team effort to weaken their defences and take them down.

The last one sounds about right-if you catch some fire from turbolasers or coordinated fire from point-defense cannons you're gonna explode.

I started just a few minutes ago a thread about the CG short because I thought it deserves a thread for itself, so it can be easily found and don't get buried in the middle of a long thread.

Varko Grey’s Canon backstory has been added to the Star Wars Databank

4 hours ago, Npmartian said:

The last one sounds about right-if you catch some fire from turbolasers or coordinated fire from point-defense cannons you're gonna explode.

Yeah, that's basically what happens if you fly at the big ships unsupported. From Bombastic's experience. If you think you can take on the entire Empire by yourself, you're going to be as dead as Dack.

4 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

If you think you can take on the entire Empire by yourself, you're going to be as dead as Dack.

Literally and figuratively ground beneath The Empire’s heel.

2 minutes ago, Imperial Advisor Arem Heshvaun said:

Literally and figuratively ground beneath The Empire’s heel.

One thing I noticed from the Blew My Mind video above, just how much firepower the capital ships put out. Watching that Star Destroyer in action, man...

I like in the video where he described it as being between BFII and really hardcore. Looks like a lot of fun. Did I see something about HOTAS support even on console?

14 hours ago, Frimmel said:

I like in the video where he described it as being between BFII and really hardcore. Looks like a lot of fun. Did I see something about HOTAS support even on console?

I believe they said they were looking into it (oh do I hope) but last I heard HOTAS was currently only supported on PC

15 hours ago, Frimmel said:

I like in the video where he described it as being between BFII and really hardcore. Looks like a lot of fun. Did I see something about HOTAS support even on console?

HOTAS is confirmed for a day 1 patch on consoles.

As a longtime player of the original XvT PC games, squadrons looks amazing. I'm really only irritated it took this long and seems to be a trial balloon. Though, let's be honest, if it goes well and they make another, fuller experience version of the game, that money is already spent. Some observations and questions:

1) Can somebody explain the morale system? I know it reflects which side is doing better but how exactly does it translate into a functional gameplay mechanic? Does the side performing better get better performing AI? More aggressive capital ship fire?

2) In videos we see shields lighting up when struck by lasers, but it appears you can fly through them and are required to be under them to drop ordinance? So they are all ray shields? Not a big deal. Just curious. Historically, shields have smashed physical items as well. (See those poor Blue Squadron chaps that didn't make it through the shield aperture over Scarif before it closed.) As it is, it looks like you can skim over a ship, fly 'through' its shields, but shots fired outside them will be blocked.

3) Is it just me or does it seem like they haven't incorporated much in the way of banking roll? I recognize the drift mechanic is its own thing. But typical banking, even as depicted in the movies outside atmosphere (i.e., space), has fighters banking with the topside bias roll we see in aircraft in atmosphere. Basically, if you want to dive down, you'r better off rotating your canopy 'dirt-side' and then pulling 'up' into the earth. Sure, you could just shove the stick down and remain upright, but it produces a blunted trajectory that is not as aerodynamically efficient. Likewise, when you bank to the sides, even remaining at the same altitude, your cockpit rolls 'into' the turn and then returns to level flight as you come out of the turn. I feel like when I see players banking in the videos the screen just looks like a car turning right: the horizon relative to the cockpit stays level. Is anybody else noticing this? I know it's a game, I know it's not even Star Wars canon to treat physics as realistic (sound in space!). It's just such a dissonant experience seeing banking aircraft seem to laterally 'drive' into their turns instead of banking into them. Is it just me? Am I not paying attention enough?

4A) I wish game developers would lose the assumption that we need symmetrical game scenarios to have fun or that fair means identical force compositions. 1 flagship, with 2 capital ship escorts, supported by 2 fast attack frigates on each side? Sure, sounds awesome! But the identical fleet compositions and therefore identical mission objectives will get old and make for repetitive play to some extent. Part of what made the old XvT games so great was we had asymmetrical forces facing off in dynamic missions. Why not have Imperials ambush evacuating Rebel GR75s? Win/loss criteria are the number of ships that get away. Or Rebels strike an XQ series space platform with only starfighter forces against the Imperials with the station defenses? Rebel win condition is the destruction of the station, Imperial win condition is to inflict X losses on the Rebels which would force them to withdraw before destroying the station. Or an ISD and Interdictor pull a Rebel fleet out of hyperspace, Imperials have to destroy 4 CR90s and then escape before 20min are up and Rebel reinforcements arrive. Asymmetric missions, randomly collected under an overall "Fleet Actions" mode would make each round exciting, spice up place, and can still have reasonably fair expectations of victory for either side without needing to justify identical battles with mildly different scripted reasons as to why said identical fleets are meeting. Or assign attack orders to AI but have the mission be to cover them.

4B) And if that's too much to ask (it's not), can we just get the capital ships moving along different planes? It seems the corvettes and escorts will circle into the middle of combat, but it would be nice if the flagships also moved about somewhat. Maybe randomize captain attitudes, conservative, neutral, aggressive. Every time you play each flagship captain has a random attitude assigned that creates a different decision tree that plays out some basic maneuvers. The conservative captain stays close in and keeps his supporting escorts close. The aggressive captain bores full speed ahead and sends his fleet on an all out attack. The conservative captain will only press the attack if he has 50% forces left, making it harder on your squadron to do on your own if you haven't defended them as well. Plus, they already created voice and attitude scripts to choose from for players (which is awesome). Do the same with the "captains." A rookie flagship office floods the comms with panicky calls for help, an aggressive captain is overheard taunting his opponent.

5A) Be nice if players had the ability to affect some dynamic play commands. Kind of like the battlepoints you can spend in SWBFII on heroes. Except, if you accrue points, you can call in a Y-wing bombing run or request an AI support craft. Nothing super powerful. But things that can create more dynamism in play. The Battlefield WWI "Grand Operations" game mode has a sympathetic system, whichever side is losing gets one major reinforcement to try and change the tide of battle, like a zeppelin. Be neat if you could call in an extra CR90 and designate where it drops out of hyperspace or cash in some morale points for a gaggle of TIEs to be launched. It would be a great way to get B-wings and TIE Defenders in play, leave them as NPCs that make brief, devastating appearances on the battlefield but only if exceptional points are made and traded in for them.

5B) Craft type linked orders would be great! Maybe if you're in a support craft your accrued battle points let you call in an extra frigate. Bombers can call in a flight of AI fighters to cover them or designate a section of a target for an AI bombing run. Fighters can call in an ace level AI wingman. Interceptors can assign an enemy player or target for focused fire whose destruction will generate increased morale points.

6) The old Microsoft WWII Pacific Flight Simulator had a great AI wingman system. You played with an AI wingman. They could be rookie, experienced, veteran, or ace level skill levels. The longer they were alive, the more their AI improved. But if they were shot down on a mission, you got a noob on the next. It really made you invest in protecting them and think carefully about sending them on attack orders. The old Rogue Squadron games let you ask for cover, attack my target, or retreat. Maybe give each player an AI wingman that tries to stay near you and can follow such basic orders. They'd be great morale targets too (like that TIE Bomber in the 'Hunter' CG short the Imperial captain almost saved, ops).

Okay, sorry. I know this turned into a wish list. But I'd love to hear people's thoughts.

17 minutes ago, R22 said:

2) In videos we see shields lighting up when struck by lasers, but it appears you can fly through them and are required to be under them to drop ordinance? So they are all ray shields? Not a big deal. Just curious. Historically, shields have smashed physical items as well. (See those poor Blue Squadron chaps that didn't make it through the shield aperture over Scarif before it closed.) As it is, it looks like you can skim over a ship, fly 'through' its shields, but shots fired outside them will be blocked

IIRC, they are 2 types of shield in the Star Wars lore.
One type blocks only the lasers, that is the one the capital ships are equiped with.
That's why they can launch fighter in combat while keeping their shield up.

27 minutes ago, R22 said:

4A) I wish game developers would lose the assumption that we need symmetrical game scenarios to have fun or that fair means identical force compositions. 1 flagship, with 2 capital ship escorts, supported by 2 fast attack frigates on each side? Sure, sounds awesome! But the identical fleet compositions and therefore identical mission objectives will get old and make for repetitive play to some extent. Part of what made the old XvT games so great was we had asymmetrical forces facing off in dynamic missions. Why not have Imperials ambush evacuating Rebel GR75s? Win/loss criteria are the number of ships that get away. Or Rebels strike an XQ series space platform with only starfighter forces against the Imperials with the station defenses? Rebel win condition is the destruction of the station, Imperial win condition is to inflict X losses on the Rebels which would force them to withdraw before destroying the station. Or an ISD and Interdictor pull a Rebel fleet out of hyperspace, Imperials have to destroy 4 CR90s and then escape before 20min are up and Rebel reinforcements arrive. Asymmetric missions, randomly collected under an overall "Fleet Actions" mode would make each round exciting, spice up place, and can still have reasonably fair expectations of victory for either side without needing to justify identical battles with mildly different scripted reasons as to why said identical fleets are meeting. Or assign attack orders to AI but have the mission be to cover them.

The problem with asymmetrical game modes is balance (specially in a PvP game).

27 minutes ago, R22 said:

6) The old Microsoft WWII Pacific Flight Simulator had a great AI wingman system. You played with an AI wingman. They could be rookie, experienced, veteran, or ace level skill levels. The longer they were alive, the more their AI improved. But if they were shot down on a mission, you got a noob on the next. It really made you invest in protecting them and think carefully about sending them on attack orders. The old Rogue Squadron games let you ask for cover, attack my target, or retreat. Maybe give each player an AI wingman that tries to stay near you and can follow such basic orders. They'd be great morale targets too (like that TIE Bomber in the 'Hunter' CG short the Imperial captain almost saved, ops).

This would be great (for the singleplayer part, I guess).

1 minute ago, Odanan said:

The problem with asymmetrical game modes is balance (specially in a PvP game).

Obviously, but I think game devs have just assumed balance = objective, literal equivalency. I still don't see why reasonable equivalency shouldn't be enough. Defend 5 transports vs destroy 5 transports. 1 Capital ship vs 5 escorts. Asymmetrical, sure. Equivalent, perhaps not. Balanced and fair? Frankly, probably good enough. Especially in a game where players accrue ranked, individual stats. A player on the losing team maybe doesn't get a win bonus, but they can still score more kills, have higher accuracy, more objective points, etc. that still see them make points for skins, ship customizations, etc. And that's before you bring in all the other things I mentioned that would allow players to impact gameplay and have a sense of control. Players don't need identical forces, they need to feel like they had a chance to impact the result. And if you just have to defend for 20mins, can assign wingmen to defend targets, cash in morale points for a reinforcement, and play your guts out, I don't think most players will say "yeah, but that match was broken because I didn't have an ISD too."

1 hour ago, R22 said:

Obviously, but I think game devs have just assumed balance = objective, literal equivalency. I still don't see why reasonable equivalency shouldn't be enough. Defend 5 transports vs destroy 5 transports. 1 Capital ship vs 5 escorts. Asymmetrical, sure. Equivalent, perhaps not. Balanced and fair? Frankly, probably good enough. Especially in a game where players accrue ranked, individual stats. A player on the losing team maybe doesn't get a win bonus, but they can still score more kills, have higher accuracy, more objective points, etc. that still see them make points for skins, ship customizations, etc. And that's before you bring in all the other things I mentioned that would allow players to impact gameplay and have a sense of control. Players don't need identical forces, they need to feel like they had a chance to impact the result. And if you just have to defend for 20mins, can assign wingmen to defend targets, cash in morale points for a reinforcement, and play your guts out, I don't think most players will say "yeah, but that match was broken because I didn't have an ISD too."

Yes, it is possible, but much harder to achieve balance in asymmetrical designs. That's why devs usually go for the safe way.

Anyway, isn't there a "Historical Battle" game mode, or something like that, in the game? I guess this could cover more creative scenarios.

3 hours ago, R22 said:

As a longtime player of the original XvT PC games, squadrons looks amazing. I'm really only irritated it took this long and seems to be a trial balloon. Though, let's be honest, if it goes well and they make another, fuller experience version of the game, that money is already spent. Some observations and questions:

1) Can somebody explain the morale system? I know it reflects which side is doing better but how exactly does it translate into a functional gameplay mechanic? Does the side performing better get better performing AI? More aggressive capital ship fire?

2) In videos we see shields lighting up when struck by lasers, but it appears you can fly through them and are required to be under them to drop ordinance? So they are all ray shields? Not a big deal. Just curious. Historically, shields have smashed physical items as well. (See those poor Blue Squadron chaps that didn't make it through the shield aperture over Scarif before it closed.) As it is, it looks like you can skim over a ship, fly 'through' its shields, but shots fired outside them will be blocked.

3) Is it just me or does it seem like they haven't incorporated much in the way of banking roll? I recognize the drift mechanic is its own thing. But typical banking, even as depicted in the movies outside atmosphere (i.e., space), has fighters banking with the topside bias roll we see in aircraft in atmosphere. Basically, if you want to dive down, you'r better off rotating your canopy 'dirt-side' and then pulling 'up' into the earth. Sure, you could just shove the stick down and remain upright, but it produces a blunted trajectory that is not as aerodynamically efficient. Likewise, when you bank to the sides, even remaining at the same altitude, your cockpit rolls 'into' the turn and then returns to level flight as you come out of the turn. I feel like when I see players banking in the videos the screen just looks like a car turning right: the horizon relative to the cockpit stays level. Is anybody else noticing this? I know it's a game, I know it's not even Star Wars canon to treat physics as realistic (sound in space!). It's just such a dissonant experience seeing banking aircraft seem to laterally 'drive' into their turns instead of banking into them. Is it just me? Am I not paying attention enough?

4A) I wish game developers would lose the assumption that we need symmetrical game scenarios to have fun or that fair means identical force compositions. 1 flagship, with 2 capital ship escorts, supported by 2 fast attack frigates on each side? Sure, sounds awesome! But the identical fleet compositions and therefore identical mission objectives will get old and make for repetitive play to some extent. Part of what made the old XvT games so great was we had asymmetrical forces facing off in dynamic missions. Why not have Imperials ambush evacuating Rebel GR75s? Win/loss criteria are the number of ships that get away. Or Rebels strike an XQ series space platform with only starfighter forces against the Imperials with the station defenses? Rebel win condition is the destruction of the station, Imperial win condition is to inflict X losses on the Rebels which would force them to withdraw before destroying the station. Or an ISD and Interdictor pull a Rebel fleet out of hyperspace, Imperials have to destroy 4 CR90s and then escape before 20min are up and Rebel reinforcements arrive. Asymmetric missions, randomly collected under an overall "Fleet Actions" mode would make each round exciting, spice up place, and can still have reasonably fair expectations of victory for either side without needing to justify identical battles with mildly different scripted reasons as to why said identical fleets are meeting. Or assign attack orders to AI but have the mission be to cover them.

4B) And if that's too much to ask (it's not), can we just get the capital ships moving along different planes? It seems the corvettes and escorts will circle into the middle of combat, but it would be nice if the flagships also moved about somewhat. Maybe randomize captain attitudes, conservative, neutral, aggressive. Every time you play each flagship captain has a random attitude assigned that creates a different decision tree that plays out some basic maneuvers. The conservative captain stays close in and keeps his supporting escorts close. The aggressive captain bores full speed ahead and sends his fleet on an all out attack. The conservative captain will only press the attack if he has 50% forces left, making it harder on your squadron to do on your own if you haven't defended them as well. Plus, they already created voice and attitude scripts to choose from for players (which is awesome). Do the same with the "captains." A rookie flagship office floods the comms with panicky calls for help, an aggressive captain is overheard taunting his opponent.

5A) Be nice if players had the ability to affect some dynamic play commands. Kind of like the battlepoints you can spend in SWBFII on heroes. Except, if you accrue points, you can call in a Y-wing bombing run or request an AI support craft. Nothing super powerful. But things that can create more dynamism in play. The Battlefield WWI "Grand Operations" game mode has a sympathetic system, whichever side is losing gets one major reinforcement to try and change the tide of battle, like a zeppelin. Be neat if you could call in an extra CR90 and designate where it drops out of hyperspace or cash in some morale points for a gaggle of TIEs to be launched. It would be a great way to get B-wings and TIE Defenders in play, leave them as NPCs that make brief, devastating appearances on the battlefield but only if exceptional points are made and traded in for them.

5B) Craft type linked orders would be great! Maybe if you're in a support craft your accrued battle points let you call in an extra frigate. Bombers can call in a flight of AI fighters to cover them or designate a section of a target for an AI bombing run. Fighters can call in an ace level AI wingman. Interceptors can assign an enemy player or target for focused fire whose destruction will generate increased morale points.

6) The old Microsoft WWII Pacific Flight Simulator had a great AI wingman system. You played with an AI wingman. They could be rookie, experienced, veteran, or ace level skill levels. The longer they were alive, the more their AI improved. But if they were shot down on a mission, you got a noob on the next. It really made you invest in protecting them and think carefully about sending them on attack orders. The old Rogue Squadron games let you ask for cover, attack my target, or retreat. Maybe give each player an AI wingman that tries to stay near you and can follow such basic orders. They'd be great morale targets too (like that TIE Bomber in the 'Hunter' CG short the Imperial captain almost saved, ops).

Okay, sorry. I know this turned into a wish list. But I'd love to hear people's thoughts.

1) I believe with the moral system it works as follows: raising your moral will move your corvettes deeper into enemy territory allowing them to get in on the action, otherwise, they hang back only taking shots on anything that gets near them.

2) not 100% sure how shields will function. They may function differently on corvettes and battle ships since we know we can target specific components of the larger ships.

3) if it's ANYTHING like the old X-Wing/TIE Fighter/XvT/X-Wing Alliance games, you bank as your turn.

4) I'm sort of in agreement here, but I can see why they did this with this game: It's quick and easy to make it symmetrical. It's a cheaper than average game to buy, there's no planned add-on content, and if anything, just bug and balance fix patches for the future. if there's a squadrons 2, I can see them adding more robust maps and modes.

5 and 6) The game is designed around the players being "aces" with the AI being the fodder, so that's where your focus should be. Again, would these be amazing concepts to have in a sequel? ABSOLUTELY. The legacy games this is a love letter to (X-Wing, TIE Fighter, etc.) had wingmate commands from the get go (cover me, attack my target, return home) and X-Wing Alliance even had a reinforcements request feature! I'd love to see the U-Wing and TIE Reaper go from being JUST support ships to almost field command ships where they have the ability to coordinate with AI ships and have them assist in objectives or covering other player ships.

It's Single Player Campaign, Training mode, Dogfight (no NPC or AI, just 5v5 PVP), and Fleet Mode (5v5 PVP with "several dozen NPC AI per side" along with capital ship support).

The training mode is supposed to be surprisingly robust, you can pick what ships are there, your health stats, etc.

A mode that gave devs the cover of it being "historical" and allowing for more creative scenarios would be fine. I personally believe asymmetric balance is far more doable than people assume and so rewarding in terms of immersion and experience that it would justify itself if just given a proper shot. Like I said, some games already do this. Battlefield's "Grand Operations" gives the losing side a major reinforcement like dangerous artillery or air support. Teams that take an objective well are granted more spawns, replicating the sense of their being more forces available to take an objective. But if they fail to take it quickly, they have fewer spawns for the whole team to utilize while attacking the next objective. All of that creates basic asymmetrical play situations but they're directly influenced by players. Even something that basic, like allowing a team to call in a bombing strike or extra frigate, would help keep battles more lively and new.

11 minutes ago, Kehl_Aecea said:

The legacy games this is a love letter to (X-Wing, TIE Fighter, etc.) had wingmate commands from the get go (cover me, attack my target, return home) and X-Wing Alliance even had a reinforcements request feature!

Jeebus, I remember spamming the "attack my target" command so badly sometimes, lol. "Yes, the freighter is the objective but if we don't kill this **** pesky TIE Advanced I'm not going to be able to kill the freighter!" *SHIFT-A SHIFT-A SHIFT-A*

Sometimes I'd randomly assign an AI wingmate preferential treatment, pretend they were a friend or somebody I knew, so I'd be more invested in keeping that one alive. Made for fun little minigame moments like trying to cover "my Biggs" while he hyped out after ordering a retreat.

11 minutes ago, Kehl_Aecea said:

I'd love to see the U-Wing and TIE Reaper go from being JUST support ships to almost field command ships where they have the ability to coordinate with AI ships and have them assist in objectives or covering other player ships.

I love you.

Yeah, I know this is a trial balloon game. Just pining. The dream is so close now!