Page 6 of 18

Re: Zeppelins & Bombers - New/Old Info

PostedCOLON Thu May 10, 2012 6:12 am
by Khy
Patrick wroteColonMy problem with the pricing in CS is that the smaller the fighter, the more it costs. I assume they did this thinking that people would gravitate towards interceptors (and to be fair, that's exactly my tendency when I play CS), but honestly, the most well rounded fighters are the ones that be successful. Size 4-7 presents a good mix of armor, performance, and firepower.

Oh well.


Actually, strangely enough, I've noted just the opposite. O.o

At base XP levels, medium planes seem to have provided the best blend of firepower, armor, maneuverability and speed as my medium planes tended to be the breadwinners during the starting missions of the campaign Phoenix is running with me. As my pilots have gained experience, however, I've noticed that my light and heavy planes seem to be getting a great deal more kills than any of my other pilots. My Valiant pilot, Teegan, recently blew two planes in a row up with fuel tank explosions after a recent spike in XP due to some previous kill, while the Vampire pilot she's the wingman of tends to get an average of half the total (often literal) kills per sortie as it is (almost to the point of being annoying, given he's hogging so much of the experience). In more recent missions, medium planes, like the Peacemaker, Brigand, Cutlass and King Cobra seem to have gotten markedly less kills, while only one of my two Ravens gets slightly more.

Re: Zeppelins & Bombers - New/Old Info

PostedCOLON Thu May 10, 2012 7:22 am
by Cyagen
Interesting data Khy.

Back in the days we realised that most players were using either BTN 7-6 planes or BTN 4.

The Fury, Raven, Peacekeeper and Firebrand were by far the most popular planes.

However your observation regarding the light fighters is in line with what happened historical were WW2 German and Russian aces liked planes that were lightly armed (1 20mm + 2 MGs).

As for the heavies, I guess that having a better NT allows you to get over the plane's limitation.

Re: Zeppelins & Bombers - New/Old Info

PostedCOLON Thu May 10, 2012 12:14 pm
by Patrick
2nd Update: Last night I got through about half of the turn-based architecture. This book is going to be longer in page count than it was originally going to be due to tables and what not. I am probably going to add an "enemy stronghold" map as well, so you can track where your enemy is keeping his or her resources. I'm hoping to get through the campaign section by the weekend. The bombers section is next.

Still looking at a sometime-in-June release if all goes well.

Re: Zeppelins & Bombers - New/Old Info

PostedCOLON Mon May 14, 2012 4:19 am
by csadn
Patrick wroteColonMy problem with the pricing in CS is that the smaller the fighter, the more it costs. I assume they did this thinking that people would gravitate towards interceptors (and to be fair, that's exactly my tendency when I play CS), but honestly, the most well rounded fighters are the ones that be successful. Size 4-7 presents a good mix of armor, performance, and firepower.


Funny -- I located some of the SMOCS files today; that was one of the things which was sure to pass the final voting....

Re: Zeppelins & Bombers - New/Old Info

PostedCOLON Mon May 14, 2012 4:12 pm
by Patrick
3rd Update: Zones are done, along with key installations.

Tonight will be cleaning up turned based rules and getting ready to move on to Bombers.

Edit to say that techincally ALL of it is done, but I mean imputting it into a format for printing, adding graphics, editing grammar and spelling, etc.

Re: Zeppelins & Bombers - New/Old Info

PostedCOLON Mon May 14, 2012 7:05 pm
by Thom
This is seriously exciting!

Re: Zeppelins & Bombers - New/Old Info

PostedCOLON Mon May 14, 2012 11:20 pm
by csadn
Patrick wroteColonEdit to say that techincally ALL of it is done, but I mean imputting it into a format for printing, adding graphics, editing grammar and spelling, etc.


Did I hear some say "editing spelling and grammar"? :)

Re: Zeppelins & Bombers - New/Old Info

PostedCOLON Thu May 17, 2012 1:59 am
by Grant
Patrick, what you're doing for this old game is sure appreciated by all here. Especially considering that it probably won't be as profitable as what you could be doing otherwise ;)

Re: Zeppelins & Bombers - New/Old Info

PostedCOLON Thu May 17, 2012 5:58 pm
by Patrick
4th Update: I'm managing about 3 hours a night on the book. The last few nights have been focused on the pilot record sheet, the unit campaign sheet, and the flight assignments sheet. Be ready to kill some trees with this book (you'll need a printout for each pilot, 1 for the unit, 1 or the turns, and 1 each for the aircraft you are using.)

I've updated the graphics as well, so instead of using "CS" on the pages and printouts, I'm using "ZB". No need to make it look official in my mind at this point. I also ditched the two column format of the source books for one big column. This made it easier to just do everything in Word and not need to use Acrobat or any publication software.

Tonight I'll edit "Turn Based Combat" and hopefully get to the pilot section. After that there one or two little sections to add and then onto the bombers.

Campaign takes the longest because it is all rules and tables/charts. Bombers and zeppelins will be mostly designs and back story. the thing that will take the longest in these sections are the record sheets, and counters for everything. (There are going to be a ton of counters. Hangers, barracks, trains, ships, zeppelins, blimps, anti aircraft guns, etc. If it can be landed on, shot at, destroyed, or captured, it's going to be a counter in this source book.

Stay tuned.

Re: Zeppelins & Bombers - New/Old Info

PostedCOLON Thu May 17, 2012 6:00 pm
by Patrick
Grant wroteColonPatrick, what you're doing for this old game is sure appreciated by all here. Especially considering that it probably won't be as profitable as what you could be doing otherwise ;)


Actually my second novel is with my editor right now, so it's do this source book or play Skyrim. :) And this has been on the back burner for far too long.